Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Fireplace Delusion by Sam Harris

[Emily Reyn]

Judy, the second link is a repeat.  Can you repost it?



 From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2012 5:54 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Fireplace Delusion by Sam Harris
 

  
Via Andrew Sullivan's Dish blog on Daily Beast, two pieces
that discuss points raised in Curtis's recent post on the
protected status of religion.

The first, a longish blog post, details the history of
anti-blasphemy laws in Great Britain--not quite the same
as Curtis's framing in terms of factual challenges to
religious belief, but dealing with many of the same types
of trends, since factual challenges would qualify as
blasphemy in certain contexts.

The writer then explores a point it had occurred to me to
make in my discussion with Curtis but never got around to,
as we were distracted by other details: that the protected
status of religion has always been a sociopolitical
manifestation more than a religious one. Her analysis is
thorough and fascinating and establishes that it has almost
nothing to do with the reason-vs.-belief aspect Curtis
emphasizes.

http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/beyond-the-sacred/

The second piece, by Frank Rich, published in New York
magazine, is an analysis of Romney entitled "Who in God's
Name Is Mitt Romney?" It deals, in part, with Romney's
religious identity and how it might affect his actions in
the role of president. It's a much more thoughtful 
approach, IMHO, than Curtis's fear that Romney might shape
U.S. policy based on the "odd beliefs" of Mormonism.

http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/beyond-the-sacred/


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[awoelflebater]

Barry, thank you for that, I learned a lot.

Just a few quick thoughts:

I don't think because things crashed in the end for both Robin and Rama that we 
can justifiably call them charlatans. The end doesn't, for me, invalidate the 
earlier experiences. It seems that for us, at the time, we milked it for all it 
was worth.

The thing you need to know about my involvement in what I was involved in had 
NOTHING to do with wanting to attain higher levels consciousness or even in my 
belief that Robin was enlightened. I frankly didn't give a damn. First and 
foremost I loved his rebellious nature. I loved that he was bucking the TM 
movement and doing it with a sharpness of intellect, without any airy-fairy 
embellishments. He just seemed to damn fascinating  to me. Frankly, my ego got 
me to watch that first seminar tape, to attend the first seminar. I wanted to 
see if I could be good enough, smart enough, interesting enough to be able to 
stick around and be somebody in this new and strange group of people. I was 
ego-driven.

Of course, I was promptly confronted at my very first seminar and "failed". 

I have been reading some more things about Rama in the last couple of hours. 
Some of the descriptions by seminar participants sound really, really similar 
to my seminars. We watched movies, listened to music, had stimulating 
discussions about these things, the theater, current events. There was 
chanting, manifestations, meditations.  And of course, in our case with Robin, 
we had confrontations. 

You speak about Rama encouraging  his students/followers to integrate into 
life, to pursue successful in careers:
Barry:
The one aspect of studying with Rama-Fred Lenz
> that I would say was very different than what has
> been described here as studying with Robin was that
> it was very *pragmatic*. The main emphasis was on
> doing well in the real world, being able to handle
> any situation, with some modicum of class, and with
> humor and lightness. 

It was exactly the same with Robin. We all had day jobs, there were pilots, 
physiotherapists, video production company owners, school teachers etc. It was 
about life and living, not sitting on our asses contemplating our proverbial 
navels. No one just hung around. Robin was, and still appears to be, one of the 
most energetic humans I have ever known. He emphasized the appropriateness of 
words and actions. He emphasized the acoustics of any situation and tried to 
steer us in the direction of what was or was not "happening" in any given 
moment. Kind of like someone else we know talking about the "science of being 
and art of living."

You speak about the absolute silences of your meditations with Rama, the 
attraction of that. We don't have the privilege of meeting him via FFL. But let 
me tell you, if I had the chance I would relish it. Having learned just a 
little about him it would be incredible to interact with the man, to maybe come 
to understand him through his posts, his thoughts. It has been a huge gift for 
me to have the opportunity 25 years later to see that Robin is still alive, 
still writing and still available (or was until recently) for me to have 
another look. I wonder if you would not also have welcomed the chance to 
correspond with Rama now -knowing what you do, being who you are today. I 
really, really hope I get another chance to interact with Robin, whoever he is 
today.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > I would say that both of them were charlatans, but that
> > at times Rama was far less of one than Robin. He, for
> > example, really *could* sit in a room and have hundreds
> > of people witness him perform the siddhis. In retrospect,
> > being able to do that doesn't make one sane, but it was
> > entertaining. But I wasn't there for the flash; I was 
> > around because of what it was like (in the early days)
> > to meditate with him. Pure silence. You couldn't have 
> > a thought if you tried. That was neat, and at that time
> > of my life, worth hanging around. Now, it wouldn't be.
> 
> The one aspect of studying with Rama-Fred Lenz
> that I would say was very different than what has
> been described here as studying with Robin was that
> it was very *pragmatic*. The main emphasis was on
> doing well in the real world, being able to handle
> any situation, with some modicum of class, and with
> humor and lightness. 
> 
> He also put a great deal of energy "back into the
> system," encouraging his students to pursue careers
> that would enable them to be self-sufficient. And
> many -- including myself -- took that with them when
> they left. There were very few "New Age twifs" in
> the Rama group, FAR less than in the TMO or in 
> other groups I've encountered. The students would
> have "fit in" and done well in pretty much any 
> context, from boardroom to ski slopes. 
> 
> In retrospect, the people who have done the best 
> with the t

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[Susan]

> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
> >  wrote:
snips
> 
> I am not entirely consistent either. Non hostile disagreement is OK, but 
> hostile disagreement might mean one is taking a wrong approach with someone, 
> that is, you bring hostility down on you, but you do not know why. But if it 
> shows up, you can stay or run. There is a choice, that is, if we have 
> anything like what is called free will. Barry seems to like the idea of free 
> will. We argued about that for a while. There are two components. What is the 
> 'free', and what is the 'will'. Free will is a mysterious concept. From the 
> viewpoint of science, it would appear we do not have it, or at best our 
> decisions are the result of random variations. That does not seem to be the 
> idea of free. Free will requires the concept of individuality. It requires a 
> sense of ego.

I agree.  It just feels like free will, but that is completely an illusion.  
There is no such thing. Our brains just help us take credit for events and 
thoughts and ideas and decisions that are happening on their own.  Barry and I 
have discussed this a few times and we respectfully disagree with each other.  
I know Barry and I have each had our own temporary experiences of this 
autopilot/it all happens experience.  I interpret it as a more real reality, or 
a let's say a more true and accurate experience of how things actually happen.  
The "ego/I decided this" is inserted at the end of the processing  in the 
brain, and takes credit for what went before.  My view on this is very  
influenced by what I have read about brain research. So, temporary personal 
experience and brain studies clinch the deal for me. 

I think I can safely say based on past discussions with him (altho Barry is 
free to contradict or clarify this if he cares to) that Barry sees the 
autopilot experience as just another experience in a huge range of possible 
experiences that does not necessarily signify being better than the sense of I 
and control and free will. Part of that view may be a rejection of or growing 
beyond  past views of the spiritual hierarchy of experiences (witnessing is 
superior to schmuckish state of consciousness). 

Of course, if this autopilot, awakened experience happens to be a fulltime 
thing, I would imagine that one would find it a tad tricky to argue for the 
existence of free will.

snips

> Unity is what one is, minus the conceptual world view one identifies with. 
> There is no escape from it. You can delay it. You can find a way to let the 
> body die first. Does that mean rebirth in the popular conception of it? Hell 
> if I know. Rebirth means something else to me. It happens all day long, if 
> you identify with the thoughts in your head. Hundreds of times a day. It 
> happens if you meditate or do not meditate. If the universe is really a 
> unity, rebirth does not mean you the individual is going to be reborn if the 
> body dies. Rebirth is a function of the unified field losing itself in its 
> own functioning. Some other individuated consciousness will take over. Some 
> other unenlightened schmuck will provide, and the world is full of these 
> schmucks. These schmucks are not bad people, they are not less than anybody 
> else, they are not less than the most revered saint. They are just a bit more 
> distracted in their experience of being. Getting ourselves out of schmuckdom 
> is the game of life.

The above paragraph is one I like - I like the simplicity.  It seems that 
often, without some concept or cues from a tradition or teacher, the awakening 
experience can be confusing.   Yet, those very concepts can keep a person 
looking the wrong way and tied up with ideas. I really like the word 
"distracted" in your description of how we live our lives.   To remove the 
distractedness and notice what is there.  Sounds easy. The schmuck concept 
is excellent, too. Thanks for this paragraph.

  more snips

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> I would say that both of them were charlatans, but that
> at times Rama was far less of one than Robin. He, for
> example, really *could* sit in a room and have hundreds
> of people witness him perform the siddhis. In retrospect,
> being able to do that doesn't make one sane, but it was
> entertaining. But I wasn't there for the flash; I was 
> around because of what it was like (in the early days)
> to meditate with him. Pure silence. You couldn't have 
> a thought if you tried. That was neat, and at that time
> of my life, worth hanging around. Now, it wouldn't be.

The one aspect of studying with Rama-Fred Lenz
that I would say was very different than what has
been described here as studying with Robin was that
it was very *pragmatic*. The main emphasis was on
doing well in the real world, being able to handle
any situation, with some modicum of class, and with
humor and lightness. 

He also put a great deal of energy "back into the
system," encouraging his students to pursue careers
that would enable them to be self-sufficient. And
many -- including myself -- took that with them when
they left. There were very few "New Age twifs" in
the Rama group, FAR less than in the TMO or in 
other groups I've encountered. The students would
have "fit in" and done well in pretty much any 
context, from boardroom to ski slopes. 

In retrospect, the people who have done the best 
with the time they spent with him seem to me to be
the ones who walked away from him before he self-
destructed. They're all interesting, successful,
and generally happy people. The ones who are still
(IMO) a little pathetic are the ones who bought into
Rama's trip as verbatim Truth and who still feel that
way. There are still a few of those, and they strike
me as no less grounded in reality than still-True
Believer TMers. 

All in all -- probably a lot like hanging with Robin --
it was very much a "You had to have been there" exper-
ience. If you weren't, you'll probably never understand
the attraction. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[authfriend]

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

> > > I used the term 'antics' as a catch-all summation of various
> > > posters here describing his interaction with them years past.
> > > I do not have any personal experience with this. But some of
> > > what he has written recently and in one exchange I did have
> > > with him here on FFL seemed to feel to me like what they
> > > described his having been. An informal impression.
> > 
> > Can you be specific?
> 
> A catch-all summation is not specific. If I could be more
> specific here I would have to have a mind like yours and I
> do not, at least not any more. My comment was deriviative
> from what others said, and a very general impression from
> reading some, not all, of his posts, and from one discussion
> I had with him here. Specifically it was not specific, just 
> general. Vague, Thinking or communicating in an unfocused or 
> imprecise way.

I don't recall anyone here suggesting that as characteristic
of Robin in the past, so this puzzles me. I also never had
the impression his FFL writing was unfocused or vague. He
often took a long while to get where he was going, but if
anything that seemed to be because he felt the need to be
specific about every detail of his thinking process.

> > > > > If you observe human beings interacting, there is really a
> > > > > lot of subtle and sometimes not so subtle layers of attack.
> > > > > If you are weak, if your sense of being, of existing is
> > > > > diminished, those attacks are taken on a personal level.
> > > > > There is no way to repel such things impinging on you if
> > > > > you take things on a personal level; they will have their
> > > > > effect. If Robin felt he had to leave, then I would say
> > > > > his world view was insufficiently coherent to stand up to
> > > > > what goes on here, that is, it was weak.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure exactly what his world view per se has to do
> > > > with it, but again, my sense was that it was his perception
> > > > of his own weakness in taking things personally that led
> > > > him to leave.
> > > 
> > > Maybe that is it. I think individuality is important to him
> > > in relation to his spiritual concepts. But our world view
> > > does determine what we think feel and do. It can mislead us.
> > 
> > And here you seem to be playing damned if he does, damned
> > if he doesn't.
> 
> That sometimes happens. 
> 
> > "If you are weak, if your sense of being, of existing is
> > diminished, those attacks are taken on a personal level."
> > 
> > But if that's what Robin perceived about himself, and
> > he decided to see what he could do to become stronger,
> > you appear to be saying it may have been because his
> > world view misled him.
> 
> Yes

And you have no impulse to resolve the "damned if he does,
damned if he doesn't" verdict? He's damned no matter what,
as far as you're concerned?


> Barry's posts are like test programs loaded into a computer 
> operating system to see how the system might break.

That's what he'd like you to believe. I think it's an
excuse. He enjoys breaking things just for the sake of
seeing how much damage he can do, not to improve the
system. It's a hostile impulse.


> As for Curtis, I have not interacted with him much at all, and
> I have not read huge amounts of what he has said, but I find 
> hostility directed at him more surprising than the hostility 
> directed toward Barry.

You have to get into an extended argument with Curtis
before you can see why hostility is directed at him. He
shows a very different side of himself when he's
challenged.


> > Well, as I said, and as he said any number of times, he
> > has no desire whatsoever to experience unity. It's the
> > very last thing he'd want. He's completely soured on--
> > turned against--the whole concept of enlightenment.
> 
> That is OK with me, but I think it will catch up with him
> someday. Jesus was about enlightenment, even with the
> corrupted materials that have come down to us that shows
> through. Even with the corruption of the Catholic Church,
> it shows through in places. The unified field is god, but
> that word has just too many connotations these days. Look
> at Spinoza's conception of god - it got him kicked out of
> his synagogue. It is very much like the unified field.

Robin would disagree with you strenuously about this. He
no longer accepts the notion of Impersonal God, only
Personal God.

> And then there is Aquinas (the following a paragraph someone
> wrote on a blog):
> 
> 'In pondering the silence of St Aquinas, Aldous Huxley argued
> that the great theologian experienced a fall-on mystical
> experience and this is why he fell silent and never wrote
> another word. After seeing the 'clear light', St Aquinas is
> said to have denounced his entire body of writing; th

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> Oh, this could explain a lot and certainly is a little bit 
> interesting. Not being much of a multiple guru groupie/slut 
> my experience with all the different flavours out there is 
> limited. I practiced TM and later listened to what Robin 
> Carlsen had to say. This Rama guy sounds pretty entertaining. 

Entertaining he was. :-)

> When you read a bit of Wikipedia, thanks Raunchydog, it reads 
> like some "Us" magazine excerpt. For example:
> 
> He claimed to be one of only twelve truly enlightened people 
> on Earth.[24] 

True, though many of us thought that was BS even at the time. :-)

> He claimed the enlightened twelve included his dog "Vayu".[25] 

Not true. Remember this is Wikipedia, where anyone can write
anything. He definitely had an overfondness for his dog, but
he never referred to him as enlightened. 

> Lenz believed in reincarnation and suggested that through 
> deeper awareness, one could remember past lives. He claimed 
> to remember several of his previous reincarnations, including 
> his life as a high priest at the Temple of Light in Atlantis, 
> and a teacher/leader in ancient Egypt, India, Japan, and Tibet.[22] 

All true. That he claimed it, that is.

> He often told his students that he was the reincarnation of 
> Saint Thomas More.[26]

Not true. 

> Some of his students claimed to have watched him performing 
> miracles, including levitation, teleportation, projecting 
> light from his hands, and transforming into an old, bearded 
> Asian man before their eyes.[27] 

All true.

> He also claimed to have the ability to heal people by touching 
> them, control the weather, uplift people by sending them light, 
> [clarification needed] and pass through alternate dimensions.[27] 

All true. The "he claimed it" part, that is.

> He told his followers that he "wielded the power to create and 
> demolish the universes" and that "those criticizing him would 
> invariably get hit by a car or contract cancer."[13] 

Not true. Wiki-slander. 

He was a weird dude, that's for sure. 

> Now, far be it from me to judge the legitimacy of this great 
> teacher's claims but let us just, for a moment, reflect on 
> the fact that certain "facts" about public figures can be 
> taken out of context or be downright false. I will give Mr 
> Lenz the benefit of the doubt and assume Wikipedia is 
> pretty much out to lunch here because if it is true that 
> Barry spent 15 years with this guy then, I am sorry, he 
> has nothing to say about Robin.

I would say that -- if I were at all interested in Robin --
I would probably have a lot more to say about him than most. 
I understand the power of charisma, even insane charisma.
And I understand how some can be taken in by it. 
 
One big difference between Robin and Rama-Fred Lenz was
their mastery of and use of language, and their ability 
to communicate. Fred, whatever his issues, was an English
professor whose talks always made perfect sense to almost
anyone hearing them. You needed to learn no special jargon
or "special" language, and talks were often quite uplifting.

*In retrospect* I certainly admit that the Rama guy was 
more than a little Narcissistic Personality Disordered, as
much or more than Robin. I see them as similar, except 
that Rama could actually *produce* in terms of shifting
the state of attention of people he was working with. No
moodmaking needed, no browbeating (or actual beating) 
needed. It was a trip...one that I would not repeat, but
(like you) one that I learned from. 

I would say that both of them were charlatans, but that
at times Rama was far less of one than Robin. He, for
example, really *could* sit in a room and have hundreds
of people witness him perform the siddhis. In retrospect,
being able to do that doesn't make one sane, but it was
entertaining. But I wasn't there for the flash; I was 
around because of what it was like (in the early days)
to meditate with him. Pure silence. You couldn't have 
a thought if you tried. That was neat, and at that time
of my life, worth hanging around. Now, it wouldn't be.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Super Bowl commercials

[raunchydog]

Giants won 21-17

http://sports.yahoo.com/photos/giants-win-the-super-bowl-1328498124-slideshow/

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> They leaked the Super Bowl commercials, so why bother watching the game? 
> Watch the game, it will be more interesting than the commercials this year. 
> "One Rotten Tomato" least rotten to most rotten:
> 
> 1 Chevy Sonic "Stunt Anthem" Commercial: exciting, cool stunts.
> 2 Toyota Camry's "It's Reinvented" Commercial: loved the poop-free baby.
> 3 John Stamos for Dannon Oikos Greek Yogurt: liked feisty girl head-butt.
> 4 Ferris Bueller's Honda CR-V Ad: Broderick out of the mothballs...Meh.
> 5 "The Dog Strikes Back" by VW: the dog was terrific, the unnecessary Star 
> War characters ruined a perfectly good commercial.
> 6 "The Bark Side" by VW: I love dogs but this was just plain irritating.
> 7 Will Arnett's Hulu Ad: dumb.
> 8 "Hot Wild Girls -- Crash the Super Bowl" for Doritos: dumber.
> 9 David Beckham for H&M: repulsively narcissistic. Might as well just show 
> his dick already. 
> 
> http://culture.wnyc.org/articles/features/2012/feb/03/watch-super-bowl-2012-commercials/
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> What do you mean by "low rent" in this open letter context? 
> Sounds like a typical pejorative kind of term you are very 
> comfortable throwing at lots of things in this world, from 
> lousy movies to dim-witted gurus.

Low-rent. Nothing whatsoever to do with Unity (in fact,
all of the 'demons' stuff is the essence of duality), and
nothing of any practical value. Purely stuck-in-one's-
head intellectual stuff, NOT very well expressed, NOT
very well thought out, and NOT of any interest. 

> > Barry: I think you misunderstand my position. I think that 
> > Robin was never even CLOSE to Unity Consciousness.
> 
> I understood your position, I'm not talking about UC, I 
> don't have a definition for what Robin was experiencing 
> so I am not interested in a label. But I do know he was 
> experiencing something just a tad different from my usual 
> waking state and I am saying it wasn't all unicorns and 
> rainbows. 

I am saying that it wasn't all sane.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> 
> > > This seems to be the current anti-Robin party line. It's so
> > > different from my observation of his behavior here as to be
> > > mind-boggling to me. I'd guess, in fact, that he left
> > > because he had found himself, in the later stages of his
> > > tenure here, trying to exert control in defending himself
> > > from attack and perceived *that* to be not just unsatisfying
> > > but repugnant, as well as contrary to his original purpose
> > > in posting to FFL.
> > 
> > In some sense defending ourselves here happens to all of us.
> > I do not dislike Robin. I find him fascinating. Some people
> > like to read vast tome of philosophy, other comic books.
> > Robin is not a comic book, but those who prefer a simpler
> > view of life, for whatever reason we might invent, might
> > prefer to gravitate to comic book fare. I like both, but I
> > do have a strong tendency to comic book fare.
> 
> OK, I think you responded here to the term "anti-Robin" and
> nothing else.

Maybe. I was not anti-Robin. I did find it tedious to read through his stuff. 
He did not seem completely consistent and those inconsistencies made me feel 
hopeful for him. They revealed something, but I do not think I was able to 
grasp just what that was. It was not a point to argue with him on, rather it 
seemed to me to reveal something about his inner life, but I could not get a 
handle on it.
> 
> 
> > > > There is a lot of independence of thought here. Judy, Curtis, 
> > > > Barry, Ann, Emily, Susan, and the list goes on. Because no
> > > > one here is physically interacting on a personal level of
> > > > direct human contact, those personal head-to-head factors
> > > > that exert control over others are absent. Posting online, 
> > > > anonymously or not, is a much freer way to interact with 
> > > > others than face to face. Certain issues about propriety
> > > > etc., do not arise. People are more courageous online. Those
> > > > that might not be able to stand up to Robin's antics in
> > > > person, could, online, do so.
> > > 
> > > Which antics would these be, Xeno?
> > 
> > I used the term 'antics' as a catch-all summation of various
> > posters here describing his interaction with them years past.
> > I do not have any personal experience with this. But some of
> > what he has written recently and in one exchange I did have
> > with him here on FFL seemed to feel to me like what they
> > described his having been. An informal impression.
> 
> Can you be specific?

A catch-all summation is not specific. If I could be more specific here I would 
have to have a mind like yours and I do not, at least not any more. My comment 
was deriviative from what others said, and a very general impression from 
reading some, not all, of his posts, and from one discussion I had with him 
here. Specifically it was not specific, just general. Vague, Thinking or 
communicating in an unfocused or imprecise way.
> 
> > > > If you observe human beings interacting, there is really a
> > > > lot of subtle and sometimes not so subtle layers of attack.
> > > > If you are weak, if your sense of being, of existing is
> > > > diminished, those attacks are taken on a personal level.
> > > > There is no way to repel such things impinging on you if
> > > > you take things on a personal level; they will have their
> > > > effect. If Robin felt he had to leave, then I would say
> > > > his world view was insufficiently coherent to stand up to
> > > > what goes on here, that is, it was weak.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure exactly what his world view per se has to do
> > > with it, but again, my sense was that it was his perception
> > > of his own weakness in taking things personally that led
> > > him to leave.
> > 
> > Maybe that is it. I think individuality is important to him
> > in relation to his spiritual concepts. But our world view
> > does determine what we think feel and do. It can mislead us.
> 
> And here you seem to be playing damned if he does, damned
> if he doesn't.

That sometimes happens. 

> 
> "If you are weak, if your sense of being, of existing is
> diminished, those attacks are taken on a personal level."
> 
> But if that's what Robin perceived about himself, and
> he decided to see what he could do to become stronger,
> you appear to be saying it may have been because his
> world view misled him.

Yes
> 
> > > > Agreement or non agreement is not where it is at. Where it
> > > > at is how you experience your reaction to these things, how
> > > > consciously you experience how your own life gets bumped and
> > > > shoved or distorted by the impact of what others say. That
> > > > tells you not about them but about your own life.
> > > 
> > > And *that* is exactly what Robin perceived his own purpose
> > > in posting to FFL to be, as he asserted a number of times
> > > in his posts and went on to actu

[FairfieldLife] Re: Review (of sorts): "The Grey"

[curtisdeltablues]

-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> I still contend that the planet does not belong exclusively to human beings 
> and that we all need to share. I don't feel sorry for small or big livestock 
> producers. As far as I am concerned they make money off of raising (sometimes 
> in the most brutal of conditions) and slaughter of feeling, thinking animals. 
> It's a crappy job.>

I am familiar with this POV.  I have it on a case by case basis.  I believe 
that humane livestock raising is possible and am still OK with killing for 
meat. Not that I don't have my conflicts.  I am a fan of the good life with one 
bad day strategy that the places I buy meat from employ.

< But humans are not content with getting their meat from animals often raised 
in tiny enclosures, fattened with hormones and stuffed full of antibiotics all 
after not even tasting one drop of their mother's milk since they were 
virtually ripped out of the womb and isolated.>

I am really upset about the conditions in factory farms.  I source my meat 
through family farmers.  I know some of them personally.

< We also insist on toting our guns into the wilderness to take food from the 
natural predators that roam there. Maybe if we shot a few less deer or wild 
goats the wolves would not feel compelled to wander into the enclosures of 
domesticated animals.>

I am not a hunter but am not anti hunting. The culls from hunters had zero to 
do with taking game away from predators. Predators go for the weakest, hunters 
go for some of the strongest.  It is not that the hunters have over hunted the 
game, it is how much easier domestic animals are to kill when they are 
enclosed.  Nobody said that wolves are dumb!

< (I have my tree-hugging hat on at this moment, I feel like ranting so just 
let me.)>

I am too confused about the complexity of the issue to get a good rant going so 
you go girl.

> 
> And who were the dummies who chose areas that close to ranchers to release 
> wolves or maybe who were the dummy ranchers to pick some God-forsaken place 
> in the middle of nowhere to set up an operation of this kind?>

It was ecologists who meant well.  But the problem in Utah is that they have 
thrived so no matter where you put them to start, now they are all over.

> 
> By the way, one source addresses your statement about over-kill by wolves:
> 
> Do wolves really attack their prey just for the fun of it?
> No. When they kill more than they can eat in one sitting, the pack usually 
> comes back for second helpings. Wolves achieve a very low yield on hunting 
> expeditions in the wild; somewhere between 4 percent and 8 percent of their 
> attacks are successful. (Lions, by contrast, manage a kill rate of 27 percent 
> or more when they hunt in groups.) Consequently, wolves are opportunistic 
> hunters. If the chance to kill prey en masse presents itself, they have been 
> known to go after more than they can consume. But they're rarely wasteful. 
> Hungry wolves are not above scavenging, and they often return to their 
> kill—or another animals'—days later. They may even bury the leftovers to hide 
> them from competitors such as wolverines.

I wasn't saying they do this in the wild, they do this in pens.  It is an 
unnatural situation for them.  Wolves kill by consumption, they don't have a 
kill bite strategy like some big cats.  So they get in a pen and eat away at 
whatever they can catch.  So the next day the farmer faces chewed up livestock 
that must be put down.

It may be that the by the numbers wolves don't kill a significant number 
overall.  My nephew is a nature boy who hangs out with ranchers, so he may be 
giving me their emotional take on their own problems.  This view caught me 
blindside because I am interested in biodiversity.  Frankly I wish we had 
wolves in DC that would eat up the deer that are all over.  Around where I live 
they stop all attempts to control the populations and it is really destructive. 
  






> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, but how exactly do you mean pay?
> > 
> > I guess the livestock farms would prefer cash.
> > 
> > < I think I would put large amounts of money out there to preserve 
> > wolves/subsidize livestock farmers.>
> > 
> > My nephew's point (nice to be schooled by a youngster sometimes) was that 
> > the farmers were not factored into the decision to bring the wolves back to 
> > that area.  They lost the vote on that issue.  So they got a bunch of 
> > really big wolves in their back yards and laws to protect them from being 
> > shot. It kind of blindsided me because it started about a story of how his 
> > friend shot a wolf.  I reacted with a WTF?  I thought we were trying to 
> > bring back the wolf for the ecological benefit of us all, you know, big 
> > picture.  But part of that picture is that the small food producers, barely 
> > hangi

[FairfieldLife] Re: Review (of sorts): "The Grey"

[raunchydog]

Good rant, Ann. When we get overrun by deer in Iowa, we run over them with 
cars. I ran over a dead deer a few years ago, $500 damage to my car. Thank 
goodness the DNR controls deer populations by issuing more hunting tags or I'd 
see a lot more road kill than I do. 

Our planet can only sustain so many humans competing with other humans for 
resources and with animals for space. In survival of the fittest, humans always 
win more space but at what price? Perhaps our own demise.

Good information about wolves, thanks. Wolves don't kill indiscriminately if 
they have room to roam.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> I still contend that the planet does not belong exclusively to human beings 
> and that we all need to share. I don't feel sorry for small or big livestock 
> producers. As far as I am concerned they make money off of raising (sometimes 
> in the most brutal of conditions) and slaughter of feeling, thinking animals. 
> It's a crappy job. But humans are not content with getting their meat from 
> animals often raised in tiny enclosures, fattened with hormones and stuffed 
> full of antibiotics all after not even tasting one drop of their mother's 
> milk since they were virtually ripped out of the womb and isolated. We also 
> insist on toting our guns into the wilderness to take food from the natural 
> predators that roam there. Maybe if we shot a few less deer or wild goats the 
> wolves would not feel compelled to wander into the enclosures of domesticated 
> animals. (I have my tree-hugging hat on at this moment, I feel like ranting 
> so just let me.)
> 
> And who were the dummies who chose areas that close to ranchers to release 
> wolves or maybe who were the dummy ranchers to pick some God-forsaken place 
> in the middle of nowhere to set up an operation of this kind?
> 
> By the way, one source addresses your statement about over-kill by wolves:
> 
> Do wolves really attack their prey just for the fun of it?
> No. When they kill more than they can eat in one sitting, the pack usually 
> comes back for second helpings. Wolves achieve a very low yield on hunting 
> expeditions in the wild; somewhere between 4 percent and 8 percent of their 
> attacks are successful. (Lions, by contrast, manage a kill rate of 27 percent 
> or more when they hunt in groups.) Consequently, wolves are opportunistic 
> hunters. If the chance to kill prey en masse presents itself, they have been 
> known to go after more than they can consume. But they're rarely wasteful. 
> Hungry wolves are not above scavenging, and they often return to their 
> kill—or another animals'—days later. They may even bury the leftovers to hide 
> them from competitors such as wolverines.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, but how exactly do you mean pay?
> > 
> > I guess the livestock farms would prefer cash.
> > 
> > < I think I would put large amounts of money out there to preserve 
> > wolves/subsidize livestock farmers.>
> > 
> > My nephew's point (nice to be schooled by a youngster sometimes) was that 
> > the farmers were not factored into the decision to bring the wolves back to 
> > that area.  They lost the vote on that issue.  So they got a bunch of 
> > really big wolves in their back yards and laws to protect them from being 
> > shot. It kind of blindsided me because it started about a story of how his 
> > friend shot a wolf.  I reacted with a WTF?  I thought we were trying to 
> > bring back the wolf for the ecological benefit of us all, you know, big 
> > picture.  But part of that picture is that the small food producers, barely 
> > hanging on against the big agro-biz that solved its wolf problems with huge 
> > expensive fences that they can't afford, got screwed. They are the 
> > collateral damage for this project in that area.  Here is an extreme 
> > position that sums up how the ranchers in Utah feel:
> > 
> > 'Department of Natural Resources Director Michael Styler told a legislative 
> > committee Tuesday that the return of the wolves is comparable to "the 
> > resurrection of the T. rex and turning him loose on the landscape."'
> > 
> > Extreme I know.  But if you come out one morning and your income for the 
> > year is destroyed, it probably feels this way.
> > 
> > And I'm not sure this is a problem with a solution.  I don't believe we can 
> > afford to pay farmers to feed livestock to wolves. Its just that Darwin's 
> > rules apply here and they are competing for the same ecological niche we 
> > are.  It is a zero sum game.
> > 
> > 99% of the animals that have existed on this planet are now extinct. We 
> > helped plenty of them along, but most of the time it was just something 
> > bigger or smarter that took their ecological job away from them.  Starlings 
> > imported from England pushing bluebirds out of the available holes in trees 
> > cuz th

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Fireplace Delusion by Sam Harris

[authfriend]

Via Andrew Sullivan's Dish blog on Daily Beast, two pieces
that discuss points raised in Curtis's recent post on the
protected status of religion.

The first, a longish blog post, details the history of
anti-blasphemy laws in Great Britain--not quite the same
as Curtis's framing in terms of factual challenges to
religious belief, but dealing with many of the same types
of trends, since factual challenges would qualify as
blasphemy in certain contexts.

The writer then explores a point it had occurred to me to
make in my discussion with Curtis but never got around to,
as we were distracted by other details: that the protected
status of religion has always been a sociopolitical
manifestation more than a religious one. Her analysis is
thorough and fascinating and establishes that it has almost
nothing to do with the reason-vs.-belief aspect Curtis
emphasizes.

http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/beyond-the-sacred/

The second piece, by Frank Rich, published in New York
magazine, is an analysis of Romney entitled "Who in God's
Name Is Mitt Romney?" It deals, in part, with Romney's
religious identity and how it might affect his actions in
the role of president. It's a much more thoughtful 
approach, IMHO, than Curtis's fear that Romney might shape
U.S. policy based on the "odd beliefs" of Mormonism.

http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/beyond-the-sacred/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Review (of sorts): "The Grey"

[awoelflebater]

I still contend that the planet does not belong exclusively to human beings and 
that we all need to share. I don't feel sorry for small or big livestock 
producers. As far as I am concerned they make money off of raising (sometimes 
in the most brutal of conditions) and slaughter of feeling, thinking animals. 
It's a crappy job. But humans are not content with getting their meat from 
animals often raised in tiny enclosures, fattened with hormones and stuffed 
full of antibiotics all after not even tasting one drop of their mother's milk 
since they were virtually ripped out of the womb and isolated. We also insist 
on toting our guns into the wilderness to take food from the natural predators 
that roam there. Maybe if we shot a few less deer or wild goats the wolves 
would not feel compelled to wander into the enclosures of domesticated animals. 
(I have my tree-hugging hat on at this moment, I feel like ranting so just let 
me.)

And who were the dummies who chose areas that close to ranchers to release 
wolves or maybe who were the dummy ranchers to pick some God-forsaken place in 
the middle of nowhere to set up an operation of this kind?

By the way, one source addresses your statement about over-kill by wolves:

Do wolves really attack their prey just for the fun of it?
No. When they kill more than they can eat in one sitting, the pack usually 
comes back for second helpings. Wolves achieve a very low yield on hunting 
expeditions in the wild; somewhere between 4 percent and 8 percent of their 
attacks are successful. (Lions, by contrast, manage a kill rate of 27 percent 
or more when they hunt in groups.) Consequently, wolves are opportunistic 
hunters. If the chance to kill prey en masse presents itself, they have been 
known to go after more than they can consume. But they're rarely wasteful. 
Hungry wolves are not above scavenging, and they often return to their kill—or 
another animals'—days later. They may even bury the leftovers to hide them from 
competitors such as wolverines.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> >
> > Ah, but how exactly do you mean pay?
> 
> I guess the livestock farms would prefer cash.
> 
> < I think I would put large amounts of money out there to preserve 
> wolves/subsidize livestock farmers.>
> 
> My nephew's point (nice to be schooled by a youngster sometimes) was that the 
> farmers were not factored into the decision to bring the wolves back to that 
> area.  They lost the vote on that issue.  So they got a bunch of really big 
> wolves in their back yards and laws to protect them from being shot. It kind 
> of blindsided me because it started about a story of how his friend shot a 
> wolf.  I reacted with a WTF?  I thought we were trying to bring back the wolf 
> for the ecological benefit of us all, you know, big picture.  But part of 
> that picture is that the small food producers, barely hanging on against the 
> big agro-biz that solved its wolf problems with huge expensive fences that 
> they can't afford, got screwed. They are the collateral damage for this 
> project in that area.  Here is an extreme position that sums up how the 
> ranchers in Utah feel:
> 
> 'Department of Natural Resources Director Michael Styler told a legislative 
> committee Tuesday that the return of the wolves is comparable to "the 
> resurrection of the T. rex and turning him loose on the landscape."'
> 
> Extreme I know.  But if you come out one morning and your income for the year 
> is destroyed, it probably feels this way.
> 
> And I'm not sure this is a problem with a solution.  I don't believe we can 
> afford to pay farmers to feed livestock to wolves. Its just that Darwin's 
> rules apply here and they are competing for the same ecological niche we are. 
>  It is a zero sum game.
> 
> 99% of the animals that have existed on this planet are now extinct. We 
> helped plenty of them along, but most of the time it was just something 
> bigger or smarter that took their ecological job away from them.  Starlings 
> imported from England pushing bluebirds out of the available holes in trees 
> cuz they are bigger and they can. (I love bluebirds and had a box in my yard 
> that raised a brood one year.  Little blue fluff balls like something that 
> would fly around a princess's head in a Disney movie singing.)
> 
>  lives.>
> 
> I hear ya.  Most of my tears are for the Great apes and Tigers, but it all 
> fits together doesn't it?  We can't even keep our reefs alive.
> 
> I try to get out in my Kayak on the Potomac to plug into nature around here.  
> Once I am on the river I can often have it to myself, which shows how few 
> people in a metro area take advantage of our local wildness.  And it is one 
> of the success stories of getting cleaned up even though it is now going the 
> other way again.  
> 
> Any stories of your life with nature up there would be welcome.  Do wolves 
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> Oh, this could explain a lot and certainly is a little bit interesting. Not 
> being much of a multiple guru groupie/slut my experience with all the 
> different flavours out there is limited. I practiced TM and later listened to 
> what Robin Carlsen had to say. This Rama guy sounds pretty entertaining. When 
> you read a bit of Wikipedia, thanks Raunchydog, it reads like some "Us" 
> magazine excerpt. For example:
> 
>  He claimed to be one of only twelve truly enlightened people on Earth.[24] 
> He claimed the enlightened twelve included his dog "Vayu".[25] Lenz believed 
> in reincarnation and suggested that through deeper awareness, one could 
> remember past lives. He claimed to remember several of his previous 
> reincarnations, including his life as a high priest at the Temple of Light in 
> Atlantis, and a teacher/leader in ancient Egypt, India, Japan, and Tibet.[22] 
> He often told his students that he was the reincarnation of Saint Thomas 
> More.[26]
> Some of his students claimed to have watched him performing miracles, 
> including levitation, teleportation, projecting light from his hands, and 
> transforming into an old, bearded Asian man before their eyes.[27] He also 
> claimed to have the ability to heal people by touching them, control the 
> weather, uplift people by sending them light,[clarification needed] and pass 
> through alternate dimensions.[27] He told his followers that he "wielded the 
> power to create and demolish the universes" and that "those criticizing him 
> would invariably get hit by a car or contract cancer."[13] 
> 
> Now, far be it from me to judge the legitimacy of this great teacher's claims 
> but let us just, for a moment, reflect on the fact that certain "facts" about 
> public figures can be taken out of context or be downright false.  I will 
> give Mr Lenz the benefit of the doubt and assume Wikipedia is pretty much out 
> to lunch here because if it is true that Barry spent 15 years with this guy 
> then, I am sorry, he has nothing to say about Robin.
> 
> Thanks for throwing me that bone Raunchydog, you knew I wouldn't be able to 
> resist.
> 

Arf!

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hey Barry,
> > > > I liked that you tried to go back and read the open letter 
> > > > again. It says something about you that I appreciate.
> > > > You say:
> > > > I'll bet that if I went back and read that sentence again, it 
> > > > might make more sense to me. But WHY would I want to do that? 
> > > > Is the state of attention being represented in that sentence 
> > > > one that I really have any desire to fully understand, much 
> > > > less re-experience?" 
> > > > 
> > > > Well, you'll only know that if you put a little effort into 
> > > > trying. 
> > > 
> > > Why would I *want* to "try?" You're speaking as if the 
> > > mindset I was supposed to grok was worth grokking.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > If his descriptions of his personal purgatory, maybe even 
> > > > hell, for these last 25 years is any indication he may have 
> > > > also like to have "taken a pass" on the whole episode. And 
> > > > I certainly don't think he is asking anyone to revere him 
> > > > (or to pity him) but I can tell you I am pretty thankful I 
> > > > only had to be the recipient of his demonic/divine 
> > > > perceptions and not the perceiver.
> > > 
> > > I can understand that in that you are a survivor of some-
> > > thing/someone you were once attracted to. I am just stating
> > > that I would never have been attracted.
> > > 
> > 
> > Around the time Ann was hanging out with Robin wasn't Barry hanging out 
> > with Frederick Lenz? Fifteen years, wasn't it? If he hadn't been so busy 
> > with Rama, maybe he would have crossed paths with Ann at one of Robin's 
> > seminars.
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Lenz
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Lenz
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[awoelflebater]

Oh, this could explain a lot and certainly is a little bit interesting. Not 
being much of a multiple guru groupie/slut my experience with all the different 
flavours out there is limited. I practiced TM and later listened to what Robin 
Carlsen had to say. This Rama guy sounds pretty entertaining. When you read a 
bit of Wikipedia, thanks Raunchydog, it reads like some "Us" magazine excerpt. 
For example:

 He claimed to be one of only twelve truly enlightened people on Earth.[24] He 
claimed the enlightened twelve included his dog "Vayu".[25] Lenz believed in 
reincarnation and suggested that through deeper awareness, one could remember 
past lives. He claimed to remember several of his previous reincarnations, 
including his life as a high priest at the Temple of Light in Atlantis, and a 
teacher/leader in ancient Egypt, India, Japan, and Tibet.[22] He often told his 
students that he was the reincarnation of Saint Thomas More.[26]
Some of his students claimed to have watched him performing miracles, including 
levitation, teleportation, projecting light from his hands, and transforming 
into an old, bearded Asian man before their eyes.[27] He also claimed to have 
the ability to heal people by touching them, control the weather, uplift people 
by sending them light,[clarification needed] and pass through alternate 
dimensions.[27] He told his followers that he "wielded the power to create and 
demolish the universes" and that "those criticizing him would invariably get 
hit by a car or contract cancer."[13] 

Now, far be it from me to judge the legitimacy of this great teacher's claims 
but let us just, for a moment, reflect on the fact that certain "facts" about 
public figures can be taken out of context or be downright false.  I will give 
Mr Lenz the benefit of the doubt and assume Wikipedia is pretty much out to 
lunch here because if it is true that Barry spent 15 years with this guy then, 
I am sorry, he has nothing to say about Robin.

Thanks for throwing me that bone Raunchydog, you knew I wouldn't be able to 
resist.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey Barry,
> > > I liked that you tried to go back and read the open letter 
> > > again. It says something about you that I appreciate.
> > > You say:
> > > I'll bet that if I went back and read that sentence again, it 
> > > might make more sense to me. But WHY would I want to do that? 
> > > Is the state of attention being represented in that sentence 
> > > one that I really have any desire to fully understand, much 
> > > less re-experience?" 
> > > 
> > > Well, you'll only know that if you put a little effort into 
> > > trying. 
> > 
> > Why would I *want* to "try?" You're speaking as if the 
> > mindset I was supposed to grok was worth grokking.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > If his descriptions of his personal purgatory, maybe even 
> > > hell, for these last 25 years is any indication he may have 
> > > also like to have "taken a pass" on the whole episode. And 
> > > I certainly don't think he is asking anyone to revere him 
> > > (or to pity him) but I can tell you I am pretty thankful I 
> > > only had to be the recipient of his demonic/divine 
> > > perceptions and not the perceiver.
> > 
> > I can understand that in that you are a survivor of some-
> > thing/someone you were once attracted to. I am just stating
> > that I would never have been attracted.
> > 
> 
> Around the time Ann was hanging out with Robin wasn't Barry hanging out with 
> Frederick Lenz? Fifteen years, wasn't it? If he hadn't been so busy with 
> Rama, maybe he would have crossed paths with Ann at one of Robin's seminars.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Lenz
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Lenz
>

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Feb 04 00:00:00 2012
End Date (UTC): Sat Feb 11 00:00:00 2012
158 messages as of (UTC) Mon Feb 06 00:07:09 2012

31 authfriend 
17 nablusoss1008 
15 curtisdeltablues 
13 turquoiseb 
13 raunchydog 
10 awoelflebater 
10 Bhairitu 
 8 Vaj 
 7 obbajeeba 
 6 merudanda 
 6 "Richard J. Williams" 
 5 cardemaister 
 4 Susan 
 4 John 
 2 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
 2 Rick Archer 
 1 ultrarishi 
 1 marekreavis 
 1 Paulo Barbosa 
 1 Duveyoung 
 1 Alex Stanley 

Posters: 21
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[authfriend]

Returning to one point...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> Thank you for responding to this. Some comments below in your reply.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> > > There is a lot of independence of thought here. Judy, Curtis, 
> > > Barry, Ann, Emily, Susan, and the list goes on. Because no
> > > one here is physically interacting on a personal level of
> > > direct human contact, those personal head-to-head factors
> > > that exert control over others are absent. Posting online, 
> > > anonymously or not, is a much freer way to interact with 
> > > others than face to face. Certain issues about propriety
> > > etc., do not arise. People are more courageous online. Those
> > > that might not be able to stand up to Robin's antics in
> > > person, could, online, do so.
> > 
> > Which antics would these be, Xeno?
> 
> I used the term 'antics' as a catch-all summation of various 
> posters here describing his interaction with them years past.

Which posters were these who interacted with Robin in
years past? Ann, of course, but the only other of whom
I'm aware would be Vaj, who claims to have been around
him then but has been awfully vague about what he
observed. And for that matter, I have a very hard time
imagining that Ann would ever have had the slightest bit
of difficulty standing up to Robin in person. Maybe she
would like to comment on this.

> I do not have any personal experience with this. But some of
> what he has written recently and in one exchange I did have
> with him here on FFL seemed to feel to me like what they
> described his having been. An informal impression.

Out of curiosity, I went back and read that exchange.
It's a good one, thoughtful and insightful on both sides,
if not entirely cordial. But I don't see anything in
Robin's side of it that I'd be inclined to connect with
what little has been described here of Robin's "having
been." Could you be more specific?

If anyone else is interested, the preface to the exchange
begins here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/295071

It's a takedown of Barry by Robin (one that happens to
have put into words my own sense of Barry in a way I
was utterly unable to articulate). The thread continues
with Xeno commenting on Robin's post, Robin commenting
on Xeno's, and two or three more exchanges of posts
between them.

The final exchange was brief, and Robin's was the last
comment. His concluding statement:

"Anyhow, Xenophaneros, something admirable here, and I extend
my best (and non-manipulative) intentions towards you. In the
quiet eddying of the waves I feel something has made itself
felt in me, something that is good. That would I must suppose,
be you, the person that you really are."

I thought this was interesting in light of the comment in
your initial post, that you thought "Robin found dealing
with people here unsatisfying because he could not exert
the kind of control over people's ideas here in the way
that would satisfy his desire to be liked."

The remark of Robin's I just quoted doesn't really seem to
fit this appraisal, does it? It's not exactly as if you
had knuckled under to Robin's ideas (or he to yours) in
the course of that exchange, rather to the contrary.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> >
> > Hey Barry,
> > I liked that you tried to go back and read the open letter 
> > again. It says something about you that I appreciate.
> > You say:
> > I'll bet that if I went back and read that sentence again, it 
> > might make more sense to me. But WHY would I want to do that? 
> > Is the state of attention being represented in that sentence 
> > one that I really have any desire to fully understand, much 
> > less re-experience?" 
> > 
> > Well, you'll only know that if you put a little effort into 
> > trying. 
> 
> Why would I *want* to "try?" You're speaking as if the 
> mindset I was supposed to grok was worth grokking.
> 
> 
> 
> > If his descriptions of his personal purgatory, maybe even 
> > hell, for these last 25 years is any indication he may have 
> > also like to have "taken a pass" on the whole episode. And 
> > I certainly don't think he is asking anyone to revere him 
> > (or to pity him) but I can tell you I am pretty thankful I 
> > only had to be the recipient of his demonic/divine 
> > perceptions and not the perceiver.
> 
> I can understand that in that you are a survivor of some-
> thing/someone you were once attracted to. I am just stating
> that I would never have been attracted.
> 

Around the time Ann was hanging out with Robin wasn't Barry hanging out with 
Frederick Lenz? Fifteen years, wasn't it? If he hadn't been so busy with Rama, 
maybe he would have crossed paths with Ann at one of Robin's seminars.

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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[authfriend]

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

> What do you mean by "low rent" in this open letter context?
> Sounds like a typical pejorative kind of term you are very 
> comfortable throwing at lots of things in this world, from
> lousy movies to dim-witted gurus.

1.of, for, or like persons lacking education, refinement, etc.; lowbrow; coarse

2.inferior to others of its kind; second-rate, cheap, etc.: a
low-rent version of Romeo and Juliet

http://www.yourdictionary.com/low-rent

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:

> > This seems to be the current anti-Robin party line. It's so
> > different from my observation of his behavior here as to be
> > mind-boggling to me. I'd guess, in fact, that he left
> > because he had found himself, in the later stages of his
> > tenure here, trying to exert control in defending himself
> > from attack and perceived *that* to be not just unsatisfying
> > but repugnant, as well as contrary to his original purpose
> > in posting to FFL.
> 
> In some sense defending ourselves here happens to all of us.
> I do not dislike Robin. I find him fascinating. Some people
> like to read vast tome of philosophy, other comic books.
> Robin is not a comic book, but those who prefer a simpler
> view of life, for whatever reason we might invent, might
> prefer to gravitate to comic book fare. I like both, but I
> do have a strong tendency to comic book fare.

OK, I think you responded here to the term "anti-Robin" and
nothing else.


> > > There is a lot of independence of thought here. Judy, Curtis, 
> > > Barry, Ann, Emily, Susan, and the list goes on. Because no
> > > one here is physically interacting on a personal level of
> > > direct human contact, those personal head-to-head factors
> > > that exert control over others are absent. Posting online, 
> > > anonymously or not, is a much freer way to interact with 
> > > others than face to face. Certain issues about propriety
> > > etc., do not arise. People are more courageous online. Those
> > > that might not be able to stand up to Robin's antics in
> > > person, could, online, do so.
> > 
> > Which antics would these be, Xeno?
> 
> I used the term 'antics' as a catch-all summation of various
> posters here describing his interaction with them years past.
> I do not have any personal experience with this. But some of
> what he has written recently and in one exchange I did have
> with him here on FFL seemed to feel to me like what they
> described his having been. An informal impression.

Can you be specific?

> > > If you observe human beings interacting, there is really a
> > > lot of subtle and sometimes not so subtle layers of attack.
> > > If you are weak, if your sense of being, of existing is
> > > diminished, those attacks are taken on a personal level.
> > > There is no way to repel such things impinging on you if
> > > you take things on a personal level; they will have their
> > > effect. If Robin felt he had to leave, then I would say
> > > his world view was insufficiently coherent to stand up to
> > > what goes on here, that is, it was weak.
> > 
> > I'm not sure exactly what his world view per se has to do
> > with it, but again, my sense was that it was his perception
> > of his own weakness in taking things personally that led
> > him to leave.
> 
> Maybe that is it. I think individuality is important to him
> in relation to his spiritual concepts. But our world view
> does determine what we think feel and do. It can mislead us.

And here you seem to be playing damned if he does, damned
if he doesn't.

"If you are weak, if your sense of being, of existing is
diminished, those attacks are taken on a personal level."

But if that's what Robin perceived about himself, and
he decided to see what he could do to become stronger,
you appear to be saying it may have been because his
world view misled him.

> > > Agreement or non agreement is not where it is at. Where it
> > > at is how you experience your reaction to these things, how
> > > consciously you experience how your own life gets bumped and
> > > shoved or distorted by the impact of what others say. That
> > > tells you not about them but about your own life.
> > 
> > And *that* is exactly what Robin perceived his own purpose
> > in posting to FFL to be, as he asserted a number of times
> > in his posts and went on to actually demonstrate in many
> > of them.
> > 
> > What he didn't expect and had trouble dealing with was the
> > extreme personal hostility with which he was bumped and
> > shoved and distorted. He welcomed nonhostile disagreement
> > with his ideas; he reveled in it. He enjoyed having his
> > viewpoint challenged and would frequently yield to another's
> > viewpoint when he found it more convincing.
> 
> Yes, I think that is right. I think you have more stamina
> in this respect than Robin. Maybe he should take a cue.

I don't think he would want to be like me in that regard.

And again I'm not sure you're responding to anything else
I said in the two paragraphs you quote, because it's just
about the opposite of what you said to start with.

> Hostility sure can be a important factor. He certain could
> do what Barry does. He could continue to post, but only
> respond to certain posters. You tend to take on everybody.
> There was a kitten my neighbors had when I was little. It
> would attack the end of a vacuum cleaner, get the air
> sucked out of it. It would back off, then attack again.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Super Bowl commercials

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> 
> Thanks for that, and in addition there are videos showing how they train 
> these horses to do the things they do in the commercials. This is not 
> computer enhanced effects like I thought. Just google something like " the 
> making of Budweiser Clydesdale commercials" and there are mini documentaries 
> on how they got these horses to do all the stuff!
> 

Budweiser Snowball Fight, looks like a lot of fun.
http://youtu.be/Jh1qN88SDhM

How they trained Clydesdales for this commercial is a lot of work.

http://www.turtleranch.net/behind.htm#


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > >
> > > I love the Budweiser commercials. Check it out:
> > >  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veQ AJ4qlltU
> > > 
> > 
> > Magnificent animals. Beautiful commercial. No longer pulling the plow, the 
> > Clydesdale established its niche in the market place as a valued Budweiser 
> > employee thereby ensuring perpetuation of its breed. Here's to business 
> > savvy horse sense and an amber cold one. 
> > 
> > "The Budweiser Clydesdales are a group of Clydesdale horses used for 
> > promotions and commercials by the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Company. There are 
> > six "hitches" or teams of horses, five that travel around the United States 
> > and one that remains in their official home at the company headquarters at 
> > the Anheuser-Busch brewery complex in St. Louis, Missouri, where they are 
> > housed in a historic brick and stained-glass stable built in 1885. There 
> > are eight horses driven at one time, but ten horses are on each team to 
> > provide alternates for the hitch when needed. Assorted Clydesdales are also 
> > used as animal actors in television commercials for Budweiser beer, 
> > particularly in Super Bowl ads.
> > 
> > Many of the Clydesdales owned by Anheuser-Busch are raised at Grant's Farm 
> > near St. Louis, Missouri. The Budweiser Clydesdale Stables at Grant's Farm 
> > house approximately 35 mares, stallions and foals, with an average of 15 
> > foals produced each year. Anheuser-Busch owns a total of about 250 
> > Clydesdales, kept at various locations throughout the United States, one of 
> > the largest herds of Clydesdale horses in the world."
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budweiser_Clydesdales
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bhairitu,  How can you not enjoy the creativity of the Super Bowl ads?  
> > > > Sure it's for poisons and trivialities, but there's so much 
> > > > entertainment value.  It's not like you're being asked to enjoy the 
> > > > creative products of Nazis using human skin to make lamp shades even 
> > > > though it can be framed suchly. Why train your mind to be, well, so 
> > > > sour?  How does that serve you?  Does it keep you on some sort of 
> > > > "Orange Alert" that you feel keeps you from being brainwashed by the 
> > > > ads?  What?  
> > > > 
> > > > And as for sports, that's one thing, but what about fitness?  If you're 
> > > > not exercising, would you take a testimonial from me that it is not 
> > > > only fun but amazingly beneficial in obvious ways?
> > > > 
> > > > You're one of the good guys; hate to see you giving such bandwidth to 
> > > > so much angsteven though it's Kali Yuga.  
> > > > 
> > > > Edg
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 02/03/2012 11:39 PM, raunchydog wrote:
> > > > > > More Super Bowl Commercials
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And the winner is... "Fucking for Flowers" (Teleflora - Super Bowl 
> > > > > > Ad - Adriana Lima)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.starpulse.com/news/Kevin_Blair/2012/02/03/adriana_lima_sizzles_in_telefloras_ear
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> They leaked the Super Bowl commercials, so why bother watching the 
> > > > > >> game? Watch the game, it will be more interesting than the 
> > > > > >> commercials this year. "One Rotten Tomato" least rotten to most 
> > > > > >> rotten:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 1 Chevy Sonic "Stunt Anthem" Commercial: exciting, cool stunts.
> > > > > >> 2 Toyota Camry's "It's Reinvented" Commercial: loved the poop-free 
> > > > > >> baby.
> > > > > >> 3 John Stamos for Dannon Oikos Greek Yogurt: liked feisty girl 
> > > > > >> head-butt.
> > > > > >> 4 Ferris Bueller's Honda CR-V Ad: Broderick out of the 
> > > > > >> mothballs...Meh.
> > > > > >> 5 "The Dog Strikes Back" by VW: the dog was terrific, the 
> > > > > >> unnecessary Star War characters ruined a perfectly good commercial.
> > > > > >> 6 "The Bark Side" by VW: I love dogs but this was just plain 
> > > > > >> irritating.
> > > > > >> 7 Will Arnett's Hulu Ad: dumb.
> > > > > >> 8 "Hot Wild Girls -- Crash the Super Bowl" for Doritos: dumber.
> > > > > >> 9 David Beckham

Re: [FairfieldLife] Trend Analysis For Dummies

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> On Feb 5, 2012, at 1:05 PM, turquoiseb wrote:
> > 
> > And I tried. I really tried. But what I found myself doing -- 
> > at first subconsciously but as I became aware of it more 
> > consciously -- is getting to the end of a sentence and going, 
> > "Huh? WTF? I'll bet that if I went back and read that sentence 
> > again, it might make more sense to me. But WHY would I want 
> > to do that? Is the state of attention being represented in 
> > that sentence one that I really have any desire to fully
> > understand, much less re-experience?" The result would be 
> > that I'd move on to the next sentence, and if it had the same 
> > vibe, the same mindset, I'd probably skip the rest of the 
> > sentences in the paragraph and try the next paragraph. Rinse, 
> > and repeat.
> 
> Just a hint on his past style: this writing style you're 
> seeing (or have seen) on FFL of RWC is almost indistinguishable 
> from his earlier hypomanic book writings or seminar ramblings.
> 
> In fact the odd thing is how little he's changed. IMO.

I have no problem believing this to be true. The way
he writes is the way he thinks, and that way of think-
ing is clearly the result of a lifetime of indulgence.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

Thank you for responding to this. Some comments below in your reply.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> 
> > I have known a few people who have had unity experiences,
> > and none of them describe anything of the complexity of
> > what Robin said. One person at the end of a trip on river
> > rapids lost his footing and got swept into the river. He 
> > experienced, in his words, 'the universe was inside my head'.
> > That was it, everything was one. Another friend at one time 
> > described the same thing to me, this time it was an
> > experience during the TM flying sutra. He said 'everything
> > was inside of me'.
> > 
> > I had that experience briefly many years ago (over 30 years
> > ago to be more precise) for a minute or so that happened 
> > spontaneously. None of these experiences here lasted. So
> > they seem to be indicators of some kind of progress toward
> > what we could call a spiritual goal, but not a completion
> > of that process.
> > 
> > The main character of these experiences is a profound
> > simplicity, that everything is connected in some way.
> > Robin'a experience, whatever it was, in his interpretation
> > seems heavily cluttered with various mythologies and
> > forces. Those that describe unity do not in essense
> > describe anything fantastical. Unity is basically just
> > like life was before one started on the spiritual grind,
> > but with a shift in perspective. One went from point A
> > to point A. That is nowhere. But the journey provided a
> > refreshing perspective on life.
> 
> Two points to remember: First, Robin's experience of what
> he believed to be Unity lasted for at least 10 years.
> Second, the way he describes that experience *now* is,
> according to him, from a "de-enlightened" perspective. He
> still believes he was in UC, but he is now convinced UC
> is a fundamentally delusional state that does not reflect
> ultimate reality.

He may indeed have been in unity, and that it was unstable, but I certainly 
disagree with him that it is delusional.
 
> The description of Unity you provide above is on the basis
> either of your own very brief experience, or on the basis
> of what you've read or heard of others' experiences, or
> both. So there are some significant differences in context
> (in contrast to the brief experiences in particular, Robin
> was living with his for over a decade).
> 
> Bottom line, I'm not sure it's possible to make judgments
> about the nature or authenticity of whatever state Robin
> was in on these grounds.

Well I have read what others have said, but the experience I related that took 
place long ago, was long ago, I did not say a word about what I have 
experienced since then. Claiming one has a certain experience has a certain 
stigmata in spiritual circles. What I have experienced is nothing out of the 
ordinary. But spiritual experience is also not really anything out of the 
ordinary. It is just the normal state of experience. Quite a lot of water 
passes under the bridge in three or four decades. Still, it is just water 
passing under the bridge. By definition, absolute is something that never 
changes. Water passing under the bridge seems like change. But it is always 
just water passing under the bridge. A tautology. Realisation is a tautology. A 
tautology is empty, it is nothing but always true. If one experiences this, 
then the next thing is 'what the hell do I do with this?' This takes the rest 
of your life, so it is ongoing, this weaving of nothing into one's life. And it 
is not different than before this realisation, one was always doing this. One 
becomes more aware of what is happening or if one will, what is not happening, 
that is all.
> 
> 
> > There seem to be a number Christian saints who have
> > experienced this; none of them talk about Vedic gods. They
> > never heard of Vedic gods. They describe their experiences
> > in terms of there own pantheon of spiritual forces.
> 
> From which you draw what conclusion vis-a-vis Robin?

The conclusions we draw at any specific time in our lives involve the 
conceptual framework we have at that time, what we have appropriated as what we 
think we know, and our experience. Robin interprets his experience with what is 
in his head, and I interpret mine and his with what is in my head. There are 
going to be differences.
 
> 
> > Nobody forced Robin to do anything. He left. That's it. Now
> > if I make up something, an interpretation of that event, I
> > would say I think (and this is not a truth, but just what
> > my thoughts are) Robin found dealing with people here
> > unsatisfying because he could not exert the kind of control
> > over people's ideas here in the way that would satisfy his
> > desire to be liked.
> 
> This seems to be the current anti-Robin party line. It's so
> different from my observation of his behavior here as to be
> mind-boggling to me. I'd gue

Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] Trend Analysis For Dummies

[Vaj]

On Feb 5, 2012, at 1:05 PM, turquoiseb wrote:

> And I tried. I really tried. But what I found myself doing -- at first
> subconsciously but as I became aware of it more consciously -- is
> getting to the end of a sentence and going, "Huh? WTF? I'll bet that if
> I went back and read that sentence again, it might make more sense to
> me. But WHY would I want to do that? Is the state of attention being
> represented in that sentence one that I really have any desire to fully
> understand, much less re-experience?" The result would be that I'd move
> on to the next sentence, and if it had the same vibe, the same mindset,
> I'd probably skip the rest of the sentences in the paragraph and try the
> next paragraph. Rinse, and repeat.
> 


Just a hint on his past style: this writing style you're seeing (or have seen) 
on FFL of RWC is almost indistinguishable from his earlier hypomanic book 
writings or seminar ramblings.

In fact the odd thing is how little he's changed. IMO.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Review (of sorts): "The Grey"

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> Ah, but how exactly do you mean pay?

I guess the livestock farms would prefer cash.

< I think I would put large amounts of money out there to preserve 
wolves/subsidize livestock farmers.>

My nephew's point (nice to be schooled by a youngster sometimes) was that the 
farmers were not factored into the decision to bring the wolves back to that 
area.  They lost the vote on that issue.  So they got a bunch of really big 
wolves in their back yards and laws to protect them from being shot. It kind of 
blindsided me because it started about a story of how his friend shot a wolf.  
I reacted with a WTF?  I thought we were trying to bring back the wolf for the 
ecological benefit of us all, you know, big picture.  But part of that picture 
is that the small food producers, barely hanging on against the big agro-biz 
that solved its wolf problems with huge expensive fences that they can't 
afford, got screwed. They are the collateral damage for this project in that 
area.  Here is an extreme position that sums up how the ranchers in Utah feel:

'Department of Natural Resources Director Michael Styler told a legislative 
committee Tuesday that the return of the wolves is comparable to "the 
resurrection of the T. rex and turning him loose on the landscape."'

Extreme I know.  But if you come out one morning and your income for the year 
is destroyed, it probably feels this way.

And I'm not sure this is a problem with a solution.  I don't believe we can 
afford to pay farmers to feed livestock to wolves. Its just that Darwin's rules 
apply here and they are competing for the same ecological niche we are.  It is 
a zero sum game.

99% of the animals that have existed on this planet are now extinct. We helped 
plenty of them along, but most of the time it was just something bigger or 
smarter that took their ecological job away from them.  Starlings imported from 
England pushing bluebirds out of the available holes in trees cuz they are 
bigger and they can. (I love bluebirds and had a box in my yard that raised a 
brood one year.  Little blue fluff balls like something that would fly around a 
princess's head in a Disney movie singing.)



I hear ya.  Most of my tears are for the Great apes and Tigers, but it all fits 
together doesn't it?  We can't even keep our reefs alive.

I try to get out in my Kayak on the Potomac to plug into nature around here.  
Once I am on the river I can often have it to myself, which shows how few 
people in a metro area take advantage of our local wildness.  And it is one of 
the success stories of getting cleaned up even though it is now going the other 
way again.  

Any stories of your life with nature up there would be welcome.  Do wolves ever 
get at horses? 






> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> >  In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Well, luckily my portion of all the cows, pigs and sheep I haven't eaten 
> > > for 35 years I can chalk up as having donated to the wolves. They are 
> > > welcome to my portion.
> > 
> > Interesting concept if vegitarians would be willing to actually pay for 
> > such a sponsorship.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > They definitely should have chosen dragons. That's all we need, more 
> > > > > people on the fear bandwagon against wolves who are some of the most 
> > > > > persecuted animals in history. And persecution is usually the result 
> > > > > of legend, rumour and ignorance. In Canada we still have wolf kills 
> > > > > up north. Add that to the continuing seal clubbings and the Canucks 
> > > > > can appear like a mean/bloodthirsty bunch. 
> > > > 
> > > > I have always been a wolf supported in thoery.  I love the idea of a 
> > > > natural herd thinner for deer and elk.  But my nephew, an avid hunter 
> > > > going to school out West gave me a different perspective this 
> > > > Christmas.  He claimed that the wolves that were reintroduced in his 
> > > > area are a larger type than originally lived in that area.  And they 
> > > > find that if you have a lot of animals confined in a pen, it is a lot 
> > > > easier to catch dinner than running through the woods all night free 
> > > > range.  So they hang around farms and parents are terrified.  The thing 
> > > > about how wolves kill when they get in a livestock enclosure is that 
> > > > they don't kill an animal and eat it like a lion.  They go on a killing 
> > > > spree leaving dozens of dead animals in one night, because they are 
> > > > triggered for multiple kills by instinct of flight, it is not hunger 
> > > > based.
> > > > 
> > > > So I was kind of turned around about the anti wolf crowd.  Not that I 
> > > > am just taking their side, I haven't forgotten my eco

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Feb 5, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote:
> 
> > For example, I had an argument with Judy once, that continued offline. It 
> > did not resolve. But I did realise that I was mis-interpreting some things 
> > she said to me. I had overlooked some things and was making part of my 
> > argument based on an error of perception. But there is an aspect of Judy's 
> > style of argumentation that seems hidden to me. There is something 
> > underlying that I cannot interpret - I think of it is some kind of 
> > emotional thing, which surely could be wrong - but with me and others, I 
> > get the feeling that world views are sufficiently skewed, so the responses 
> > of either party are sufficiently divergent that neither party is talking 
> > about the same thing.
> 
> I think you've touched on a fundamental issue in Judy's style
> here, as I've noticed the same thing many, many times. It'll
> have to wait till I have more time.

Indeed, you'll have to have enough time to actually read
my posts, since you now don't read any of them and haven't
for some time (years).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[authfriend]

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

> My "takeaway" from this experience is that Robin might have
> had -- and for all I know might still be having --

Not according to him.

> some whiz-bang spiritual experiences. But neither his 
> interpretation of them nor his description of them and what 
> they "mean" is in the least inviting to me. *Nothing* in me
> wants to go there. I would rather yank out all of my own
> teeth than think like that.
> 
> It's not that his the vision/description of Unity Consciousness
> is one that I personally don't prefer, or that I feel is
> somehow incomplete or inaccurate. It's that this vision/
> description is of a mental state that I would never in a
> million years wish to experience. Nothing in me WANTS to
> achieve that mental state, or revere someone who wears or
> wore it.

You do realize that Robin would be thrilled to hear you
say that, right? You do realize that Robin now feels
exactly the same way, right?

Probably not, because you didn't, by your own admission,
read what he wrote with sustained attention.

> I think you suggested that Robin seemed to be only able to
> relate to people who are willing to accept what he says.
> I'd agree with that assessment

And both of you would be wrong, from the evidence of Robin's
own posts.

> and I'm even willing to accept what he says as what it is --
> the combination of what he experienced and how he interpreted
> it. But accept it as valid, or Truth? I think not. I come away
> from the experience feeling that if his intent was to encourage
> people to accept what he says is either Truth, or desirable, he
> failed. If you're trying to convince people to think like you,
> they kinda have to WANT to think like you. The way you think 
> shouldn't actually turn them off. Just sayin'.

FWIW, Robin's whole Vedic Gods bit turned me off, and I
disagreed rather strongly with a number of his other ideas.
Somehow that didn't seem to interfere with his ability to
relate to me, rather to the contrary. He enjoyed my
challenging him.

And again I'm going to cite that dialogue he had with
PaliGap, in which the two of them disagreed about the
existence of reincarnation. That disagreement, which was
definitely not resolved, didn't bother either of them.
The whole discussion was friendly and respectful. Neither
of them convinced the other, and that was fine with both.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/284090

None of those of you who keep insisting Robin required
agreement with his ideas will read it, because you don't
want to have your perception challenged.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Super Bowl commercials

[awoelflebater]

Thanks for that, and in addition there are videos showing how they train these 
horses to do the things they do in the commercials. This is not computer 
enhanced effects like I thought. Just google something like " the making of 
Budweiser Clydesdale commercials" and there are mini documentaries on how they 
got these horses to do all the stuff!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> >
> > I love the Budweiser commercials. Check it out:
> >  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veQ AJ4qlltU
> > 
> 
> Magnificent animals. Beautiful commercial. No longer pulling the plow, the 
> Clydesdale established its niche in the market place as a valued Budweiser 
> employee thereby ensuring perpetuation of its breed. Here's to business savvy 
> horse sense and an amber cold one. 
> 
> "The Budweiser Clydesdales are a group of Clydesdale horses used for 
> promotions and commercials by the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Company. There are 
> six "hitches" or teams of horses, five that travel around the United States 
> and one that remains in their official home at the company headquarters at 
> the Anheuser-Busch brewery complex in St. Louis, Missouri, where they are 
> housed in a historic brick and stained-glass stable built in 1885. There are 
> eight horses driven at one time, but ten horses are on each team to provide 
> alternates for the hitch when needed. Assorted Clydesdales are also used as 
> animal actors in television commercials for Budweiser beer, particularly in 
> Super Bowl ads.
> 
> Many of the Clydesdales owned by Anheuser-Busch are raised at Grant's Farm 
> near St. Louis, Missouri. The Budweiser Clydesdale Stables at Grant's Farm 
> house approximately 35 mares, stallions and foals, with an average of 15 
> foals produced each year. Anheuser-Busch owns a total of about 250 
> Clydesdales, kept at various locations throughout the United States, one of 
> the largest herds of Clydesdale horses in the world."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budweiser_Clydesdales
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> > >
> > > Bhairitu,  How can you not enjoy the creativity of the Super Bowl ads?  
> > > Sure it's for poisons and trivialities, but there's so much entertainment 
> > > value.  It's not like you're being asked to enjoy the creative products 
> > > of Nazis using human skin to make lamp shades even though it can be 
> > > framed suchly. Why train your mind to be, well, so sour?  How does that 
> > > serve you?  Does it keep you on some sort of "Orange Alert" that you feel 
> > > keeps you from being brainwashed by the ads?  What?  
> > > 
> > > And as for sports, that's one thing, but what about fitness?  If you're 
> > > not exercising, would you take a testimonial from me that it is not only 
> > > fun but amazingly beneficial in obvious ways?
> > > 
> > > You're one of the good guys; hate to see you giving such bandwidth to so 
> > > much angsteven though it's Kali Yuga.  
> > > 
> > > Edg
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 02/03/2012 11:39 PM, raunchydog wrote:
> > > > > More Super Bowl Commercials
> > > > >
> > > > > And the winner is... "Fucking for Flowers" (Teleflora - Super Bowl Ad 
> > > > > - Adriana Lima)
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.starpulse.com/news/Kevin_Blair/2012/02/03/adriana_lima_sizzles_in_telefloras_ear
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> They leaked the Super Bowl commercials, so why bother watching the 
> > > > >> game? Watch the game, it will be more interesting than the 
> > > > >> commercials this year. "One Rotten Tomato" least rotten to most 
> > > > >> rotten:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 1 Chevy Sonic "Stunt Anthem" Commercial: exciting, cool stunts.
> > > > >> 2 Toyota Camry's "It's Reinvented" Commercial: loved the poop-free 
> > > > >> baby.
> > > > >> 3 John Stamos for Dannon Oikos Greek Yogurt: liked feisty girl 
> > > > >> head-butt.
> > > > >> 4 Ferris Bueller's Honda CR-V Ad: Broderick out of the 
> > > > >> mothballs...Meh.
> > > > >> 5 "The Dog Strikes Back" by VW: the dog was terrific, the 
> > > > >> unnecessary Star War characters ruined a perfectly good commercial.
> > > > >> 6 "The Bark Side" by VW: I love dogs but this was just plain 
> > > > >> irritating.
> > > > >> 7 Will Arnett's Hulu Ad: dumb.
> > > > >> 8 "Hot Wild Girls -- Crash the Super Bowl" for Doritos: dumber.
> > > > >> 9 David Beckham for H&M: repulsively narcissistic. Might as well 
> > > > >> just show his dick already.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> http://culture.wnyc.org/articles/features/2012/feb/03/watch-super-bowl-2012-commercials/
> > > > 
> > > > Who wants to be part of Amerikan "group think"?  I don't.  Never watch 
> > > > the Stupor Bowl (not into sports anyway) and could care less about the 
> > > > commercials. ;-)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Review (of sorts): "The Grey"

[awoelflebater]

Ah, but how exactly do you mean pay? I think I would put large amounts of money 
out there to preserve wolves/subsidize livestock farmers. Because in the end we 
pay a lot more once we lose access to the wild in our lives.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
>  In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Well, luckily my portion of all the cows, pigs and sheep I haven't eaten 
> > for 35 years I can chalk up as having donated to the wolves. They are 
> > welcome to my portion.
> 
> Interesting concept if vegitarians would be willing to actually pay for such 
> a sponsorship.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > They definitely should have chosen dragons. That's all we need, more 
> > > > people on the fear bandwagon against wolves who are some of the most 
> > > > persecuted animals in history. And persecution is usually the result of 
> > > > legend, rumour and ignorance. In Canada we still have wolf kills up 
> > > > north. Add that to the continuing seal clubbings and the Canucks can 
> > > > appear like a mean/bloodthirsty bunch. 
> > > 
> > > I have always been a wolf supported in thoery.  I love the idea of a 
> > > natural herd thinner for deer and elk.  But my nephew, an avid hunter 
> > > going to school out West gave me a different perspective this Christmas.  
> > > He claimed that the wolves that were reintroduced in his area are a 
> > > larger type than originally lived in that area.  And they find that if 
> > > you have a lot of animals confined in a pen, it is a lot easier to catch 
> > > dinner than running through the woods all night free range.  So they hang 
> > > around farms and parents are terrified.  The thing about how wolves kill 
> > > when they get in a livestock enclosure is that they don't kill an animal 
> > > and eat it like a lion.  They go on a killing spree leaving dozens of 
> > > dead animals in one night, because they are triggered for multiple kills 
> > > by instinct of flight, it is not hunger based.
> > > 
> > > So I was kind of turned around about the anti wolf crowd.  Not that I am 
> > > just taking their side, I haven't forgotten my ecological ideas. This is 
> > > a complex issue.  Small livestock farmers are surviving on a thread as it 
> > > is.  Clearing out this year's profit is as good as a wolf grabbing his 
> > > throat if he can't support his family.  They are competitors to humans.  
> > > And we as a species didn't make it this far by just conceding.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I was drawn to this movie by Liam Neeson, who is often a 
> > > > > commanding presence in movies. And, as survival/adventure
> > > > > tales go, it's pretty standard. An ordinary guy, whose Day
> > > > > Job it is to shoot dragons to keep them from wreaking havoc
> > > > > among the tasty human workers in Alaska's oil fields, is
> > > > > depressed to the point of suicide. But something intervenes
> > > > > in his suicide attempt, and he gets on a plane with a bunch
> > > > > of other guys the next day as planned.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Unfortunately, the plane crashes, leaving only seven of the
> > > > > guys still alive. For now. Trouble is, they are surrounded
> > > > > by a herd of dragons, who start picking the guys off one by
> > > > > one as they wander away from the plane to take a pee. So 
> > > > > Liam Neeson -- obviously leader material because he gets
> > > > > top billing in the movie -- convinces them to head for the
> > > > > woods, where the dragons might be less able to get at them.
> > > > > Adventure ensues, with our hero now fighting for his life
> > > > > the day after wanting to end it. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > What's that you say? Dragons? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > OK, "The Grey" isn't really about dragons. Insert "wolves"
> > > > > above wherever I mentioned dragons.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The thing is, it just as well *could* have been dragons.
> > > > > There have been almost as many documented attacks of humans
> > > > > by dragons in North America as there have been attacks of
> > > > > humans by wolves. You can count the number of documented
> > > > > wolf attacks on a couple of fingers. Maybe one or two less
> > > > > for dragon attacks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Although "The Grey" is a passable fictional adventure story, 
> > > > > I'm kinda offended because it's *total* fiction. In Asia, 
> > > > > there are cases of wolves attacking humans. In North America,
> > > > > one or two at the most. It just doesn't happen. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > But the filmmakers decided that the public *believes* it
> > > > > happens (after all, if Sarah Palin shoots wolves from a 
> > > > > helicopter, they've *got* to be dangerous, right?), so they
> > > > > thought, "Let's make

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[Vaj]

On Feb 5, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius wrote:

> For example, I had an argument with Judy once, that continued offline. It did 
> not resolve. But I did realise that I was mis-interpreting some things she 
> said to me. I had overlooked some things and was making part of my argument 
> based on an error of perception. But there is an aspect of Judy's style of 
> argumentation that seems hidden to me. There is something underlying that I 
> cannot interpret - I think of it is some kind of emotional thing, which 
> surely could be wrong - but with me and others, I get the feeling that world 
> views are sufficiently skewed, so the responses of either party are 
> sufficiently divergent that neither party is talking about the same thing.

I think you've touched on a fundamental issue in Judy's style here, as I've 
noticed the same thing many, many times. It'll have to wait till I have more 
time.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[Vaj]

On Feb 5, 2012, at 2:12 PM, cardemaister wrote:

> > How about the Yiddish shpil (a play or a game) might be better since our 
> > dear Robin always liked to be on his own stage, whether as guru or 
> > schoolteacher, and he was (and still is) the consummate game player. In 
> > America we often corrupt the Yiddish to the German "spiel", but I like the 
> > Yiddish inflection better - I get to spit when I say it.
> >
> 
> I guess the phonotactic(?) rule here is something like that
> in German (at least) an initial dental sibilant (s) is
> pronounced like a palatal sibilant (sh) before (at least)
> 't' and 'p': spiel /shpeel/, stick /shtik/.


Exactly.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[authfriend]

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

> Here is a gem:
> 
>  could not exert the kind of control over people's ideas here
> in the way that would satisfy his desire to be liked. >
> 
> This may be the best insight on Robin yet.

As I told Xeno, and explained at some length, this is about
the exact opposite of my impression of Robin, and especially
of why he left.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Feb 5, 2012, at 11:41 AM, awoelflebater wrote:
> 
> > "His whole schtick relied heavily on the naivete of MIU students, sidhas 
> > and meditators."
> > 
> > Can we all possibly come up with another word for "shtick'? It makes Robin 
> > sound like some sort of Jewish stand up comedian. (I can already envision 
> > the comeback on this one.)
> 
> How about the Yiddish shpil (a play or a game) might be better since our dear 
> Robin always liked to be on his own stage, whether as guru or schoolteacher, 
> and he was (and still is) the consummate game player. In America we often 
> corrupt the Yiddish to the German "spiel", but I like the Yiddish inflection 
> better - I get to spit when I say it.
>

I guess the phonotactic(?) rule here is something like that
in German (at least) an initial dental sibilant (s) is
pronounced like a palatal sibilant (sh) before (at least)
't' and 'p': spiel /shpeel/, stick /shtik/.

translate.google.com

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:

> I have known a few people who have had unity experiences,
> and none of them describe anything of the complexity of
> what Robin said. One person at the end of a trip on river
> rapids lost his footing and got swept into the river. He 
> experienced, in his words, 'the universe was inside my head'.
> That was it, everything was one. Another friend at one time 
> described the same thing to me, this time it was an
> experience during the TM flying sutra. He said 'everything
> was inside of me'.
> 
> I had that experience briefly many years ago (over 30 years
> ago to be more precise) for a minute or so that happened 
> spontaneously. None of these experiences here lasted. So
> they seem to be indicators of some kind of progress toward
> what we could call a spiritual goal, but not a completion
> of that process.
> 
> The main character of these experiences is a profound
> simplicity, that everything is connected in some way.
> Robin'a experience, whatever it was, in his interpretation
> seems heavily cluttered with various mythologies and
> forces. Those that describe unity do not in essense
> describe anything fantastical. Unity is basically just
> like life was before one started on the spiritual grind,
> but with a shift in perspective. One went from point A
> to point A. That is nowhere. But the journey provided a
> refreshing perspective on life.

Two points to remember: First, Robin's experience of what
he believed to be Unity lasted for at least 10 years.
Second, the way he describes that experience *now* is,
according to him, from a "de-enlightened" perspective. He
still believes he was in UC, but he is now convinced UC
is a fundamentally delusional state that does not reflect
ultimate reality.

The description of Unity you provide above is on the basis
either of your own very brief experience, or on the basis
of what you've read or heard of others' experiences, or
both. So there are some significant differences in context
(in contrast to the brief experiences in particular, Robin
was living with his for over a decade).

Bottom line, I'm not sure it's possible to make judgments
about the nature or authenticity of whatever state Robin
was in on these grounds.


> There seem to be a number Christian saints who have
> experienced this; none of them talk about Vedic gods. They
> never heard of Vedic gods. They describe their experiences
> in terms of there own pantheon of spiritual forces.

>From which you draw what conclusion vis-a-vis Robin?


> Nobody forced Robin to do anything. He left. That's it. Now
> if I make up something, an interpretation of that event, I
> would say I think (and this is not a truth, but just what
> my thoughts are) Robin found dealing with people here
> unsatisfying because he could not exert the kind of control
> over people's ideas here in the way that would satisfy his
> desire to be liked.

This seems to be the current anti-Robin party line. It's so
different from my observation of his behavior here as to be
mind-boggling to me. I'd guess, in fact, that he left
because he had found himself, in the later stages of his
tenure here, trying to exert control in defending himself
from attack and perceived *that* to be not just unsatisfying
but repugnant, as well as contrary to his original purpose
in posting to FFL.

IOW, he saw his attempts to exert control as a failure in
himself and left rather than sink any more deeply into it.

I'm curious to know whether you read Robin's exchange with
PaliGap that I linked to in my original post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/284090

It's a discussion of Robin's and PaliGap's disagreement
over reincarnation (Robin doesn't believe in it; PaliGap
does). As I said in that post:

"It isn't atypical of Robin's posts except in that it
contains *many* instances of his admitting his own
mistakes, deferring to another's perspective, and
acknowledging that he could very well be wrong in his
own perspective. He actually did this routinely; it's
just that this post has more examples than most."

> There is a lot of independence of thought here. Judy, Curtis, 
> Barry, Ann, Emily, Susan, and the list goes on. Because no
> one here is physically interacting on a personal level of
> direct human contact, those personal head-to-head factors
> that exert control over others are absent. Posting online, 
> anonymously or not, is a much freer way to interact with 
> others than face to face. Certain issues about propriety
> etc., do not arise. People are more courageous online. Those
> that might not be able to stand up to Robin's antics in
> person, could, online, do so.

Which antics would these be, Xeno?

> If you observe human beings interacting, there is really a
> lot of subtle and sometimes not so subtle layers of attack.
> If you are weak, if your sense of being, of existing is
> diminished, those attacks are taken on a personal level.
> There is no wa

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[curtisdeltablues]

Xeno:




You delivered wy more than two cents brother! That line could be the
group's header as far as I am concerned. It sums up why as a non spiritual
person, I spend time on a spiritually oriented forum.


Here is a gem:



This may be the best insight on Robin yet.


Many interesting points, I enjoyed reading it. You are definitely an
intellectual resource here.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> My 2 cents here.
> 
> I think this discussion is taking place on two different levels. Judy seems 
> focused on some very precise details. Curtis, I think, is discussing a very 
> general issue, which is 'how does one interpret one's experience in the most 
> fruitful way'.
> 
> In my experience people do not typically interpret their experience in a very 
> direct way. What they say is usually what they interpret their experience to 
> mean. I think the way Robin interpreted his experience was excessively 
> complex. I think Curtis is genuinely interested in finding a fruitful way of 
> interpreting his experience of life; he shows a strong interest in scientific 
> explanations, which is something I share up to a point.
> 
> Let's say I have a pain, on my right abdomen, about 25 centimetres from by 
> navel. This is an experience. So what is it? Well, basically it hurts there. 
> That is it. However if you look for an explanation of this, one requires some 
> kind of a world view, which can range from very simple concepts to a very 
> complex array of ideas. For example:
> 
> I have been invaded by an evil spirit.
> I have a energy disruption in my AK47 meridian, which needs balancing.
> I have an excess of ying (or yang) in that area, and I have to de-ying 
> something.
> I have a duodenal ulcer. I should take anti acid preparations.
> I ate too much.
> I bumped into a cabinet door and bruised myself, but have not remembered that 
> is what happened a couple of days ago.
> I have an infection of Helicobacter pylori and I need to take a specific 
> antibiotic.
> 
> The number of ideas we can apply to even a simple situation is extraordinary. 
> But which ones, if any, are fruitful to apply? And in the case of the 
> singularity of unity, do any even apply at all?
> 
> I have known a few people who have had unity experiences, and none of them 
> describe anything of the complexity of what Robin said. One person at the end 
> of a trip on river rapids lost his footing and got swept into the river. He 
> experienced, in his words, 'the universe was inside my head'. That was it, 
> everything was one. Another friend at one time described the same thing to 
> me, this time it was an experience during the TM flying sutra. He said 
> 'everything was inside of me'.
> 
> I had that experience briefly many years ago (over 30 years ago to be more 
> precise) for a minute or so that happened spontaneously. None of these 
> experiences here lasted. So they seem to be indicators of some kind of 
> progress toward what we could call a spiritual goal, but not a completion of 
> that process.
> 
> The main character of these experiences is a profound simplicity, that 
> everything is connected in some way. Robin'a experience, whatever it was, in 
> his interpretation seems heavily cluttered with various mythologies and 
> forces. Those that describe unity do not in essense describe anything 
> fantastical. Unity is basically just like life was before one started on the 
> spiritual grind, but with a shift in perspective. One went from point A to 
> point A. That is nowhere. But the journey provided a refreshing perspective 
> on life.
> 
> Unity is an experience of ultimate simplicity. There is no real way to 
> describe it. In attempting to describe it, one has to make up stuff. This 
> stuff is not truth, it is just a way of conveying the experience to others, 
> and if the description is useful for a person, it may nudge them in the 
> direction of trying to find out for themselves if there is such a thing. 
> Robin's story is like a science fiction fantasy novel: My Trials with Unity: 
> The Attack of the Vedic Gods.
> 
> There seem to be a number Christian saints who have experienced this; none of 
> them talk about Vedic gods. They never heard of Vedic gods. They describe 
> their experiences in terms of there own pantheon of spiritual forces. Our 
> world view strongly affects how we interpret out experiences. The odd factor 
> of unity however is that if the experience is clear enough, it blows one's 
> world view out the window into oblivion. One still has the memory of that 
> world view, but now it becomes laughable to try to believe in it. This is 
> quite a quandary. There is direct experience, and nothing else. Of course one 
> can think of something to say, but one knows it is really just false.
> 
> Nobody forced Robin to do anything. He left. That's it. Now if I make up 
> something, an interpretation of that event, I would say I think (and this is 
> not a t

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[turquoiseb]

Excellent rap. I won't comment on any of the particulars, except to say
that today, for some reason, I decided to go back and try to read that
last "Open Letter" that Robin addressed to me, knowing in advance that I
wouldn't read it. I didn't. But today I figured, "What the heck?"

And I tried. I really tried. But what I found myself doing -- at first
subconsciously but as I became aware of it more consciously -- is
getting to the end of a sentence and going, "Huh? WTF? I'll bet that if
I went back and read that sentence again, it might make more sense to
me. But WHY would I want to do that? Is the state of attention being
represented in that sentence one that I really have any desire to fully
understand, much less re-experience?" The result would be that I'd move
on to the next sentence, and if it had the same vibe, the same mindset,
I'd probably skip the rest of the sentences in the paragraph and try the
next paragraph. Rinse, and repeat.

My "takeaway" from this experience is that Robin might have had -- and
for all I know might still be having -- some whiz-bang spiritual
experiences. But neither his interpretation of them nor his description
of them and what they "mean" is in the least inviting to me. *Nothing*
in me wants to go there. I would rather yank out all of my own teeth
than think like that.

It's not that his the vision/description of Unity Consciousness is one
that I personally don't prefer, or that I feel is somehow incomplete or
inaccurate. It's that this vision/description is of a mental state that
I would never in a million years wish to experience. Nothing in me WANTS
to achieve that mental state, or revere someone who wears or wore it.

I think you suggested that Robin seemed to be only able to relate to
people who are willing to accept what he says. I'd agree with that
assessment, and I'm even willing to accept what he says as what it is --
the combination of what he experienced and how he interpreted it. But
accept it as valid, or Truth? I think not. I come away from the
experience feeling that if his intent was to encourage people to accept
what he says is either Truth, or desirable, he failed. If you're trying
to convince people to think like you, they kinda have to WANT to think
like you. The way you think shouldn't actually turn them off. Just
sayin'.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"
 wrote:
>
> My 2 cents here.
>
> I think this discussion is taking place on two different levels. Judy
seems focused on some very precise details. Curtis, I think, is
discussing a very general issue, which is 'how does one interpret one's
experience in the most fruitful way'.
>
> In my experience people do not typically interpret their experience in
a very direct way. What they say is usually what they interpret their
experience to mean. I think the way Robin interpreted his experience was
excessively complex. I think Curtis is genuinely interested in finding a
fruitful way of interpreting his experience of life; he shows a strong
interest in scientific explanations, which is something I share up to a
point.
>
> Let's say I have a pain, on my right abdomen, about 25 centimetres
from by navel. This is an experience. So what is it? Well, basically it
hurts there. That is it. However if you look for an explanation of this,
one requires some kind of a world view, which can range from very simple
concepts to a very complex array of ideas. For example:
>
> I have been invaded by an evil spirit.
> I have a energy disruption in my AK47 meridian, which needs balancing.
> I have an excess of ying (or yang) in that area, and I have to de-ying
something.
> I have a duodenal ulcer. I should take anti acid preparations.
> I ate too much.
> I bumped into a cabinet door and bruised myself, but have not
remembered that is what happened a couple of days ago.
> I have an infection of Helicobacter pylori and I need to take a
specific antibiotic.
>
> The number of ideas we can apply to even a simple situation is
extraordinary. But which ones, if any, are fruitful to apply? And in the
case of the singularity of unity, do any even apply at all?
>
> I have known a few people who have had unity experiences, and none of
them describe anything of the complexity of what Robin said. One person
at the end of a trip on river rapids lost his footing and got swept into
the river. He experienced, in his words, 'the universe was inside my
head'. That was it, everything was one. Another friend at one time
described the same thing to me, this time it was an experience during
the TM flying sutra. He said 'everything was inside of me'.
>
> I had that experience briefly many years ago (over 30 years ago to be
more precise) for a minute or so that happened spontaneously. None of
these experiences here lasted. So they seem to be indicators of some
kind of progress toward what we could call a spiritual goal, but not a
completion of that process.
>
> The main character of these experiences is a profound simplici

[FairfieldLife] Iran threatens to Attack

[John]

This is more bravado to prevent sanctions by other nations.  It appears that 
the Iranian leadership is being cornered.  An internal revolution could happen 
soon just like in Libya and other Arab Spring participants.

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-says-attack-country-used-strike-soil-124225174.html

  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[curtisdeltablues]

Xeno:




You delivered wy more than two cents brother!  That line could be the 
group's header as far as I am concerned. It sums up why as a non spiritual 
person, I spend time on a spiritually oriented forum. 


Here is a gem:



This may be the best insight on Robin yet.


Many interesting points, I enjoyed reading it.  You are definitely an 
intellectual recourse here.




 





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> My 2 cents here.
> 
> I think this discussion is taking place on two different levels. Judy seems 
> focused on some very precise details. Curtis, I think, is discussing a very 
> general issue, which is 'how does one interpret one's experience in the most 
> fruitful way'.
> 
> In my experience people do not typically interpret their experience in a very 
> direct way. What they say is usually what they interpret their experience to 
> mean. I think the way Robin interpreted his experience was excessively 
> complex. I think Curtis is genuinely interested in finding a fruitful way of 
> interpreting his experience of life; he shows a strong interest in scientific 
> explanations, which is something I share up to a point.
> 
> Let's say I have a pain, on my right abdomen, about 25 centimetres from by 
> navel. This is an experience. So what is it? Well, basically it hurts there. 
> That is it. However if you look for an explanation of this, one requires some 
> kind of a world view, which can range from very simple concepts to a very 
> complex array of ideas. For example:
> 
> I have been invaded by an evil spirit.
> I have a energy disruption in my AK47 meridian, which needs balancing.
> I have an excess of ying (or yang) in that area, and I have to de-ying 
> something.
> I have a duodenal ulcer. I should take anti acid preparations.
> I ate too much.
> I bumped into a cabinet door and bruised myself, but have not remembered that 
> is what happened a couple of days ago.
> I have an infection of Helicobacter pylori and I need to take a specific 
> antibiotic.
> 
> The number of ideas we can apply to even a simple situation is extraordinary. 
> But which ones, if any, are fruitful to apply? And in the case of the 
> singularity of unity, do any even apply at all?
> 
> I have known a few people who have had unity experiences, and none of them 
> describe anything of the complexity of what Robin said. One person at the end 
> of a trip on river rapids lost his footing and got swept into the river. He 
> experienced, in his words, 'the universe was inside my head'. That was it, 
> everything was one. Another friend at one time described the same thing to 
> me, this time it was an experience during the TM flying sutra. He said 
> 'everything was inside of me'.
> 
> I had that experience briefly many years ago (over 30 years ago to be more 
> precise) for a minute or so that happened spontaneously. None of these 
> experiences here lasted. So they seem to be indicators of some kind of 
> progress toward what we could call a spiritual goal, but not a completion of 
> that process.
> 
> The main character of these experiences is a profound simplicity, that 
> everything is connected in some way. Robin'a experience, whatever it was, in 
> his interpretation seems heavily cluttered with various mythologies and 
> forces. Those that describe unity do not in essense describe anything 
> fantastical. Unity is basically just like life was before one started on the 
> spiritual grind, but with a shift in perspective. One went from point A to 
> point A. That is nowhere. But the journey provided a refreshing perspective 
> on life.
> 
> Unity is an experience of ultimate simplicity. There is no real way to 
> describe it. In attempting to describe it, one has to make up stuff. This 
> stuff is not truth, it is just a way of conveying the experience to others, 
> and if the description is useful for a person, it may nudge them in the 
> direction of trying to find out for themselves if there is such a thing. 
> Robin's story is like a science fiction fantasy novel: My Trials with Unity: 
> The Attack of the Vedic Gods.
> 
> There seem to be a number Christian saints who have experienced this; none of 
> them talk about Vedic gods. They never heard of Vedic gods. They describe 
> their experiences in terms of there own pantheon of spiritual forces. Our 
> world view strongly affects how we interpret out experiences. The odd factor 
> of unity however is that if the experience is clear enough, it blows one's 
> world view out the window into oblivion. One still has the memory of that 
> world view, but now it becomes laughable to try to believe in it. This is 
> quite a quandary. There is direct experience, and nothing else. Of course one 
> can think of something to say, but one knows it is really just false.
> 
> Nobody forced Robin to do anything. He left. That's it. Now if I make up 
> something, an interpretation of that event, I would say I think (and this

[FairfieldLife] Re: Super Bowl commercials

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> I love the Budweiser commercials. Check it out:
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veQ AJ4qlltU
> 

Magnificent animals. Beautiful commercial. No longer pulling the plow, the 
Clydesdale established its niche in the market place as a valued Budweiser 
employee thereby ensuring perpetuation of its breed. Here's to business savvy 
horse sense and an amber cold one. 

"The Budweiser Clydesdales are a group of Clydesdale horses used for promotions 
and commercials by the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Company. There are six "hitches" 
or teams of horses, five that travel around the United States and one that 
remains in their official home at the company headquarters at the 
Anheuser-Busch brewery complex in St. Louis, Missouri, where they are housed in 
a historic brick and stained-glass stable built in 1885. There are eight horses 
driven at one time, but ten horses are on each team to provide alternates for 
the hitch when needed. Assorted Clydesdales are also used as animal actors in 
television commercials for Budweiser beer, particularly in Super Bowl ads.

Many of the Clydesdales owned by Anheuser-Busch are raised at Grant's Farm near 
St. Louis, Missouri. The Budweiser Clydesdale Stables at Grant's Farm house 
approximately 35 mares, stallions and foals, with an average of 15 foals 
produced each year. Anheuser-Busch owns a total of about 250 Clydesdales, kept 
at various locations throughout the United States, one of the largest herds of 
Clydesdale horses in the world."

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

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > Bhairitu,  How can you not enjoy the creativity of the Super Bowl ads?  
> > Sure it's for poisons and trivialities, but there's so much entertainment 
> > value.  It's not like you're being asked to enjoy the creative products of 
> > Nazis using human skin to make lamp shades even though it can be framed 
> > suchly. Why train your mind to be, well, so sour?  How does that serve you? 
> >  Does it keep you on some sort of "Orange Alert" that you feel keeps you 
> > from being brainwashed by the ads?  What?  
> > 
> > And as for sports, that's one thing, but what about fitness?  If you're not 
> > exercising, would you take a testimonial from me that it is not only fun 
> > but amazingly beneficial in obvious ways?
> > 
> > You're one of the good guys; hate to see you giving such bandwidth to so 
> > much angsteven though it's Kali Yuga.  
> > 
> > Edg
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> > >
> > > On 02/03/2012 11:39 PM, raunchydog wrote:
> > > > More Super Bowl Commercials
> > > >
> > > > And the winner is... "Fucking for Flowers" (Teleflora - Super Bowl Ad - 
> > > > Adriana Lima)
> > > >
> > > > http://www.starpulse.com/news/Kevin_Blair/2012/02/03/adriana_lima_sizzles_in_telefloras_ear
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > > >> They leaked the Super Bowl commercials, so why bother watching the 
> > > >> game? Watch the game, it will be more interesting than the commercials 
> > > >> this year. "One Rotten Tomato" least rotten to most rotten:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1 Chevy Sonic "Stunt Anthem" Commercial: exciting, cool stunts.
> > > >> 2 Toyota Camry's "It's Reinvented" Commercial: loved the poop-free 
> > > >> baby.
> > > >> 3 John Stamos for Dannon Oikos Greek Yogurt: liked feisty girl 
> > > >> head-butt.
> > > >> 4 Ferris Bueller's Honda CR-V Ad: Broderick out of the mothballs...Meh.
> > > >> 5 "The Dog Strikes Back" by VW: the dog was terrific, the unnecessary 
> > > >> Star War characters ruined a perfectly good commercial.
> > > >> 6 "The Bark Side" by VW: I love dogs but this was just plain 
> > > >> irritating.
> > > >> 7 Will Arnett's Hulu Ad: dumb.
> > > >> 8 "Hot Wild Girls -- Crash the Super Bowl" for Doritos: dumber.
> > > >> 9 David Beckham for H&M: repulsively narcissistic. Might as well just 
> > > >> show his dick already.
> > > >>
> > > >> http://culture.wnyc.org/articles/features/2012/feb/03/watch-super-bowl-2012-commercials/
> > > 
> > > Who wants to be part of Amerikan "group think"?  I don't.  Never watch 
> > > the Stupor Bowl (not into sports anyway) and could care less about the 
> > > commercials. ;-)
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Hillary Clinton Wants Friends of Syria to Unite

[John]

This is an uphill battle for this effort.  The UN has already shut down any 
help for Syria.

http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-calls-friends-syria-unite-132749258.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What is ACTA?

[Bhairitu]

On 02/05/2012 08:12 AM, raunchydog wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>>> Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping 
>>> direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. 
>>> Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court 
>>> order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply 
>>> globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than 
>>> SOPA or PIPA.
>>>
>>> http://youtu.be/N8Xg_C2YmG0
>> In what appears to be the opposite of a Polish joke,
>> Poland is so far the only country with the common
>> sense to stop this treaty dead in its tracks. Good
>> for them.
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120203/eu-poland-websites-attacked/
>>
> The fight for a free and open Internet has only just begun, and will likely 
> never end. Right this second, there are a number of potentially dangerous 
> efforts, from governments around the globe, that could be as detrimental to 
> our online world as SOPA and PIPA may have been (or could be in the future). 
> And while many of these efforts specifically target foreign countries, the 
> connected nature of the Internet means they concern us all. Here is a brief 
> rundown of those efforts, and what you can do to push back.
>
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/occupy-this-5-internet-regulations-we-need-to-destroy/

Of course I've written a song about it called "The Ballad of SOPA and 
PIPA".  Just need to get around to recording it and putting together the 
animations.  Timing for release might be when the dimbos of Congress try 
to bring those bills back.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

My 2 cents here.

I think this discussion is taking place on two different levels. Judy seems 
focused on some very precise details. Curtis, I think, is discussing a very 
general issue, which is 'how does one interpret one's experience in the most 
fruitful way'.

In my experience people do not typically interpret their experience in a very 
direct way. What they say is usually what they interpret their experience to 
mean. I think the way Robin interpreted his experience was excessively complex. 
I think Curtis is genuinely interested in finding a fruitful way of 
interpreting his experience of life; he shows a strong interest in scientific 
explanations, which is something I share up to a point.

Let's say I have a pain, on my right abdomen, about 25 centimetres from by 
navel. This is an experience. So what is it? Well, basically it hurts there. 
That is it. However if you look for an explanation of this, one requires some 
kind of a world view, which can range from very simple concepts to a very 
complex array of ideas. For example:

I have been invaded by an evil spirit.
I have a energy disruption in my AK47 meridian, which needs balancing.
I have an excess of ying (or yang) in that area, and I have to de-ying 
something.
I have a duodenal ulcer. I should take anti acid preparations.
I ate too much.
I bumped into a cabinet door and bruised myself, but have not remembered that 
is what happened a couple of days ago.
I have an infection of Helicobacter pylori and I need to take a specific 
antibiotic.

The number of ideas we can apply to even a simple situation is extraordinary. 
But which ones, if any, are fruitful to apply? And in the case of the 
singularity of unity, do any even apply at all?

I have known a few people who have had unity experiences, and none of them 
describe anything of the complexity of what Robin said. One person at the end 
of a trip on river rapids lost his footing and got swept into the river. He 
experienced, in his words, 'the universe was inside my head'. That was it, 
everything was one. Another friend at one time described the same thing to me, 
this time it was an experience during the TM flying sutra. He said 'everything 
was inside of me'.

I had that experience briefly many years ago (over 30 years ago to be more 
precise) for a minute or so that happened spontaneously. None of these 
experiences here lasted. So they seem to be indicators of some kind of progress 
toward what we could call a spiritual goal, but not a completion of that 
process.

The main character of these experiences is a profound simplicity, that 
everything is connected in some way. Robin'a experience, whatever it was, in 
his interpretation seems heavily cluttered with various mythologies and forces. 
Those that describe unity do not in essense describe anything fantastical. 
Unity is basically just like life was before one started on the spiritual 
grind, but with a shift in perspective. One went from point A to point A. That 
is nowhere. But the journey provided a refreshing perspective on life.

Unity is an experience of ultimate simplicity. There is no real way to describe 
it. In attempting to describe it, one has to make up stuff. This stuff is not 
truth, it is just a way of conveying the experience to others, and if the 
description is useful for a person, it may nudge them in the direction of 
trying to find out for themselves if there is such a thing. Robin's story is 
like a science fiction fantasy novel: My Trials with Unity: The Attack of the 
Vedic Gods.

There seem to be a number Christian saints who have experienced this; none of 
them talk about Vedic gods. They never heard of Vedic gods. They describe their 
experiences in terms of there own pantheon of spiritual forces. Our world view 
strongly affects how we interpret out experiences. The odd factor of unity 
however is that if the experience is clear enough, it blows one's world view 
out the window into oblivion. One still has the memory of that world view, but 
now it becomes laughable to try to believe in it. This is quite a quandary. 
There is direct experience, and nothing else. Of course one can think of 
something to say, but one knows it is really just false.

Nobody forced Robin to do anything. He left. That's it. Now if I make up 
something, an interpretation of that event, I would say I think (and this is 
not a truth, but just what my thoughts are) Robin found dealing with people 
here unsatisfying because he could not exert the kind of control over people's 
ideas here in the way that would satisfy his desire to be liked. There is a lot 
of independence of thought here. Judy, Curtis, Barry, Ann, Emily, Susan, and 
the list goes on. Because no one here is physically interacting on a personal 
level of direct human contact, those personal head-to-head factors that exert 
control over others are absent. Posting online, anonymously or not, is a much 
freer way to interact with others than face to face. Certain issu

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: When did America become East Germany?

[Bhairitu]

In case you didn't notice that commercial disappeared about the same 
time as the financial crisis hit. And now you're out of style unless you 
use your smartphone to purchase things. Gotta keep the sheeple in step. ;-)

On 02/05/2012 03:41 AM, merudanda wrote:
> Remember that Visa check card commercial?Or you know who would love this
> commercial, too?  [:D] Not only North-Korea -Pre -WWII Germans.
>
> Just throwing more oil into fire,.. [:D]
>
> Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
> temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
> as cited in The Papers of Benjamin  Franklin, vol. 6, p. 242
>
> Could it be when you make a transaction with a credit or debit card, you
> leave an electronic "paper trail" which can be picked up by your
> bank, or possibly a law enforcement agency?
>
> By using a credit card to buy a loaf of bread, could the FBI and TSA put
> you on their terrorist watch list? Would they'll file it under
> "suspicious activity", and perhaps even put you on a
> "no-fly" list?
>
> Cash is what old people use. Cash is what drug lords stuff in
> briefcases. Cash is for terrorist
>
>
>
> Or the "Life takes Visa (Google)"argument
>
> Remember that Visa check card commercial?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1C_UQHwd8M
> 
>
>Long lines of people are moving quickly through the fast food assembly
> line where the jolly workers are turning out lunch at an amazing clip.
> Pick up a tray, grab your food, swipe your Visa check card and get
> through the line. Fast!
>
> Everything is running like a well-oiled machine to a happy tune until
> one unsuspecting customer happens to pull out his wallet filled with
> (Gasp!)cash.
>
> Oh, no!
>
> This guy performs the unthinkable act, which brings everything to a
> screeching halt.
>
> He gets rear-ended by the mindless souls behind him as trays and food go
> flying, the machine jams, and the music stops!
>
> If looks could kill, this guy would be dead...
>
> As you wink to the customer behind you letting them know that you know
> that they know that you're part of the "VISA" club, the
> machine prompts you to input your pin number, in which you can't
> remember whether it's your youngest son's birthday coupled with
> your anniversary, and a multi-billion dollar  corporation is tracking
> your every purchase, cross referencing it with your previous buying
> habits, and then perhaps selling your name, information, likes,
> dislikes, and purchase history since you were eighteen to
> governments,companies, or marketing firms in violation of your privacy
> agreement. [:(]
>
> Yeah..,you're awesome. You reek of success. If you reek too much,
> this same company will not complain or help you stop your bank, store,
> or credit card Company from jacking your rate from 8% to 22%and we
> going to
>
>
> Another POV: Life takes Visa ... and piles up debt.
>
> Hurry up, don't think. Blow through your wad as fast as you can. Don't
> worry about how much you have in the bank just slip into a spending coma
> with little or no thought to whether you can actually afford the soda.
>
> There is no doubt that cash is inconvenient. It makes spending a bit
> more difficult. And that is a wonderful safety measure. It makes you
> plan ahead. You can't spend more cash than you have in your possession.
> You have to think -- something that Visa and MasterCard don't want us to
> do all over the world.
>
> What happened to the old USA spirit of individualism and caring about
> people having a future to look forward to? When did the music die?
>
>
>
>
>
> Was there somebody worrying about Wiki-leaks with their silly
> „secret" government conversation?
>
> u
>
> Will FFL now forcibly come to an end? [;)]
>
>
>
> Now if I could just get that bouncy tune out of my head ...
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> I'm proud to be "suspicious" to the paranoid schizophrenics running
> our
>> snoop bureaus.
>>
>> "According To The FBI, Internet Privacy Is Now Considered To Be
>> Suspicious Activity":
>>
> http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/according-to-the-fbi-internet-\
> privacy-is-now-considered-to-be-suspicious-activity
>





To subscribe, send a message to:
fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
fairfieldlife-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Super Bowl commercials

[Bhairitu]

Sorry, my response since I'm a DVR guy should have been "what are 
commercials?" :-D

Oh and I've got to leave for my daily walk shortly.

On 02/05/2012 07:33 AM, Duveyoung wrote:
> Bhairitu,  How can you not enjoy the creativity of the Super Bowl ads?  Sure 
> it's for poisons and trivialities, but there's so much entertainment value.  
> It's not like you're being asked to enjoy the creative products of Nazis 
> using human skin to make lamp shades even though it can be framed suchly. Why 
> train your mind to be, well, so sour?  How does that serve you?  Does it keep 
> you on some sort of "Orange Alert" that you feel keeps you from being 
> brainwashed by the ads?  What?
>
> And as for sports, that's one thing, but what about fitness?  If you're not 
> exercising, would you take a testimonial from me that it is not only fun but 
> amazingly beneficial in obvious ways?
>
> You're one of the good guys; hate to see you giving such bandwidth to so much 
> angsteven though it's Kali Yuga.
>
> Edg
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> On 02/03/2012 11:39 PM, raunchydog wrote:
>>> More Super Bowl Commercials
>>>
>>> And the winner is... "Fucking for Flowers" (Teleflora - Super Bowl Ad - 
>>> Adriana Lima)
>>>
>>> http://www.starpulse.com/news/Kevin_Blair/2012/02/03/adriana_lima_sizzles_in_telefloras_ear
>>>
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"   wrote:
 They leaked the Super Bowl commercials, so why bother watching the game? 
 Watch the game, it will be more interesting than the commercials this 
 year. "One Rotten Tomato" least rotten to most rotten:

 1 Chevy Sonic "Stunt Anthem" Commercial: exciting, cool stunts.
 2 Toyota Camry's "It's Reinvented" Commercial: loved the poop-free baby.
 3 John Stamos for Dannon Oikos Greek Yogurt: liked feisty girl head-butt.
 4 Ferris Bueller's Honda CR-V Ad: Broderick out of the mothballs...Meh.
 5 "The Dog Strikes Back" by VW: the dog was terrific, the unnecessary Star 
 War characters ruined a perfectly good commercial.
 6 "The Bark Side" by VW: I love dogs but this was just plain irritating.
 7 Will Arnett's Hulu Ad: dumb.
 8 "Hot Wild Girls -- Crash the Super Bowl" for Doritos: dumber.
 9 David Beckham for H&M: repulsively narcissistic. Might as well just show 
 his dick already.

 http://culture.wnyc.org/articles/features/2012/feb/03/watch-super-bowl-2012-commercials/
>> Who wants to be part of Amerikan "group think"?  I don't.  Never watch
>> the Stupor Bowl (not into sports anyway) and could care less about the
>> commercials. ;-)
>>
>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Israel Could Strike Iran in Spring

[Bhairitu]

On 02/05/2012 08:55 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
>
>>> The vast majority of Americans support Israel's right
>>> to exist - Israel is one of the most popular issues in
>>> the U.S. You just don't seem to get it - you're on the
>>> radical side of most politics.
>>>
> Bhairitu:
>> You mean the radical side that actually thinks and
>> studies issues
>>
> You have not brought anything into the discussion that
> would indicate you've done much thinking or studying of
> the issues.
>
>> instead of lying about supporting Israel while in
>> reality being a right wing bigot?
>>
> Only a tiny minority of American voters do not support
> the right of Israel to exist. You are not making any
> sense.
>
>> The American right wing is just the Israeli right
>> wing's "useful idiots."  Of course thinking Americans
>> think of them as "useless idiots." :-D
>>
> Every U.S. President since Harry S. Truman have supported
> Israel with the full support of the U.S. Congress, the
> United States media, and most of the American people.

The politicians because of the money and public because of ignorance.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Review (of sorts): "The Grey"

[curtisdeltablues]

 In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> 
> Well, luckily my portion of all the cows, pigs and sheep I haven't eaten for 
> 35 years I can chalk up as having donated to the wolves. They are welcome to 
> my portion.

Interesting concept if vegitarians would be willing to actually pay for such a 
sponsorship.



> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > >
> > > They definitely should have chosen dragons. That's all we need, more 
> > > people on the fear bandwagon against wolves who are some of the most 
> > > persecuted animals in history. And persecution is usually the result of 
> > > legend, rumour and ignorance. In Canada we still have wolf kills up 
> > > north. Add that to the continuing seal clubbings and the Canucks can 
> > > appear like a mean/bloodthirsty bunch. 
> > 
> > I have always been a wolf supported in thoery.  I love the idea of a 
> > natural herd thinner for deer and elk.  But my nephew, an avid hunter going 
> > to school out West gave me a different perspective this Christmas.  He 
> > claimed that the wolves that were reintroduced in his area are a larger 
> > type than originally lived in that area.  And they find that if you have a 
> > lot of animals confined in a pen, it is a lot easier to catch dinner than 
> > running through the woods all night free range.  So they hang around farms 
> > and parents are terrified.  The thing about how wolves kill when they get 
> > in a livestock enclosure is that they don't kill an animal and eat it like 
> > a lion.  They go on a killing spree leaving dozens of dead animals in one 
> > night, because they are triggered for multiple kills by instinct of flight, 
> > it is not hunger based.
> > 
> > So I was kind of turned around about the anti wolf crowd.  Not that I am 
> > just taking their side, I haven't forgotten my ecological ideas. This is a 
> > complex issue.  Small livestock farmers are surviving on a thread as it is. 
> >  Clearing out this year's profit is as good as a wolf grabbing his throat 
> > if he can't support his family.  They are competitors to humans.  And we as 
> > a species didn't make it this far by just conceding.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I was drawn to this movie by Liam Neeson, who is often a 
> > > > commanding presence in movies. And, as survival/adventure
> > > > tales go, it's pretty standard. An ordinary guy, whose Day
> > > > Job it is to shoot dragons to keep them from wreaking havoc
> > > > among the tasty human workers in Alaska's oil fields, is
> > > > depressed to the point of suicide. But something intervenes
> > > > in his suicide attempt, and he gets on a plane with a bunch
> > > > of other guys the next day as planned.
> > > > 
> > > > Unfortunately, the plane crashes, leaving only seven of the
> > > > guys still alive. For now. Trouble is, they are surrounded
> > > > by a herd of dragons, who start picking the guys off one by
> > > > one as they wander away from the plane to take a pee. So 
> > > > Liam Neeson -- obviously leader material because he gets
> > > > top billing in the movie -- convinces them to head for the
> > > > woods, where the dragons might be less able to get at them.
> > > > Adventure ensues, with our hero now fighting for his life
> > > > the day after wanting to end it. 
> > > > 
> > > > What's that you say? Dragons? 
> > > > 
> > > > OK, "The Grey" isn't really about dragons. Insert "wolves"
> > > > above wherever I mentioned dragons.
> > > > 
> > > > The thing is, it just as well *could* have been dragons.
> > > > There have been almost as many documented attacks of humans
> > > > by dragons in North America as there have been attacks of
> > > > humans by wolves. You can count the number of documented
> > > > wolf attacks on a couple of fingers. Maybe one or two less
> > > > for dragon attacks.
> > > > 
> > > > Although "The Grey" is a passable fictional adventure story, 
> > > > I'm kinda offended because it's *total* fiction. In Asia, 
> > > > there are cases of wolves attacking humans. In North America,
> > > > one or two at the most. It just doesn't happen. 
> > > > 
> > > > But the filmmakers decided that the public *believes* it
> > > > happens (after all, if Sarah Palin shoots wolves from a 
> > > > helicopter, they've *got* to be dangerous, right?), so they
> > > > thought, "Let's make a movie about guys fighting for their
> > > > lives against a pack of hungry wolves."
> > > > 
> > > > They should've chosen dragons. It would have been more 
> > > > realistic, and it might have been a better movie. 
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRWF4cepn8U
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Super Bowl commercials

[awoelflebater]

More sappy, wonderful Bud Clydesdale commercials:
http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=budweiser+commercials&tnr=21


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> I love the Budweiser commercials. Check it out:
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veQAJ4qlltU
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
> >
> > Bhairitu,  How can you not enjoy the creativity of the Super Bowl ads?  
> > Sure it's for poisons and trivialities, but there's so much entertainment 
> > value.  It's not like you're being asked to enjoy the creative products of 
> > Nazis using human skin to make lamp shades even though it can be framed 
> > suchly. Why train your mind to be, well, so sour?  How does that serve you? 
> >  Does it keep you on some sort of "Orange Alert" that you feel keeps you 
> > from being brainwashed by the ads?  What?  
> > 
> > And as for sports, that's one thing, but what about fitness?  If you're not 
> > exercising, would you take a testimonial from me that it is not only fun 
> > but amazingly beneficial in obvious ways?
> > 
> > You're one of the good guys; hate to see you giving such bandwidth to so 
> > much angsteven though it's Kali Yuga.  
> > 
> > Edg
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> > >
> > > On 02/03/2012 11:39 PM, raunchydog wrote:
> > > > More Super Bowl Commercials
> > > >
> > > > And the winner is... "Fucking for Flowers" (Teleflora - Super Bowl Ad - 
> > > > Adriana Lima)
> > > >
> > > > http://www.starpulse.com/news/Kevin_Blair/2012/02/03/adriana_lima_sizzles_in_telefloras_ear
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > > >> They leaked the Super Bowl commercials, so why bother watching the 
> > > >> game? Watch the game, it will be more interesting than the commercials 
> > > >> this year. "One Rotten Tomato" least rotten to most rotten:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1 Chevy Sonic "Stunt Anthem" Commercial: exciting, cool stunts.
> > > >> 2 Toyota Camry's "It's Reinvented" Commercial: loved the poop-free 
> > > >> baby.
> > > >> 3 John Stamos for Dannon Oikos Greek Yogurt: liked feisty girl 
> > > >> head-butt.
> > > >> 4 Ferris Bueller's Honda CR-V Ad: Broderick out of the mothballs...Meh.
> > > >> 5 "The Dog Strikes Back" by VW: the dog was terrific, the unnecessary 
> > > >> Star War characters ruined a perfectly good commercial.
> > > >> 6 "The Bark Side" by VW: I love dogs but this was just plain 
> > > >> irritating.
> > > >> 7 Will Arnett's Hulu Ad: dumb.
> > > >> 8 "Hot Wild Girls -- Crash the Super Bowl" for Doritos: dumber.
> > > >> 9 David Beckham for H&M: repulsively narcissistic. Might as well just 
> > > >> show his dick already.
> > > >>
> > > >> http://culture.wnyc.org/articles/features/2012/feb/03/watch-super-bowl-2012-commercials/
> > > 
> > > Who wants to be part of Amerikan "group think"?  I don't.  Never watch 
> > > the Stupor Bowl (not into sports anyway) and could care less about the 
> > > commercials. ;-)
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> 
> On Feb 5, 2012, at 11:41 AM, awoelflebater wrote:
> 
> > "His whole schtick relied heavily on the naivete of MIU students, sidhas 
> > and meditators."
> > 
> > Can we all possibly come up with another word for "shtick'?
> > It makes Robin sound like some sort of Jewish stand up
> > comedian. (I can already envision the comeback on this one.)
> 
> How about the Yiddish shpil (a play or a game) might be better
> since our dear Robin always liked to be on his own stage,
> whether as guru or schoolteacher, and he was (and still is)
> the consummate game player. In America we often corrupt the
> Yiddish to the German "spiel", but I like the Yiddish
> inflection better - I get to spit when I say it.

Speaking of anti-Semitism...

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[Vaj]

On Feb 5, 2012, at 11:41 AM, awoelflebater wrote:

> "His whole schtick relied heavily on the naivete of MIU students, sidhas and 
> meditators."
> 
> Can we all possibly come up with another word for "shtick'? It makes Robin 
> sound like some sort of Jewish stand up comedian. (I can already envision the 
> comeback on this one.)

How about the Yiddish shpil (a play or a game) might be better since our dear 
Robin always liked to be on his own stage, whether as guru or schoolteacher, 
and he was (and still is) the consummate game player. In America we often 
corrupt the Yiddish to the German "spiel", but I like the Yiddish inflection 
better - I get to spit when I say it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Israel Could Strike Iran in Spring

[Richard J. Williams]

> > The vast majority of Americans support Israel's right
> > to exist - Israel is one of the most popular issues in
> > the U.S. You just don't seem to get it - you're on the
> > radical side of most politics.
> >
Bhairitu:
> You mean the radical side that actually thinks and 
> studies issues
>
You have not brought anything into the discussion that 
would indicate you've done much thinking or studying of 
the issues.

> instead of lying about supporting Israel while in 
> reality being a right wing bigot?  
>
Only a tiny minority of American voters do not support 
the right of Israel to exist. You are not making any 
sense.

> The American right wing is just the Israeli right 
> wing's "useful idiots."  Of course thinking Americans 
> think of them as "useless idiots." :-D
>
Every U.S. President since Harry S. Truman have supported 
Israel with the full support of the U.S. Congress, the 
United States media, and most of the American people.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> "His whole schtick relied heavily on the naivete of MIU students, sidhas and 
> meditators."
> 
> Can we all possibly come up with another word for "shtick'?
> It makes Robin sound like some sort of Jewish stand up
> comedian. (I can already envision the comeback on this one.)

He missed his calling. ;-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Review (of sorts): "The Grey"

[marekreavis]

Here is a study ( 
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/01/22/trends-in-per-capita-wolf-depredations-and-control-in-the-northern-rocky-mountains/
 ) that indicates that wolf depredation of livestock in the western states 
hasn't changed much over the last 16 years. Similarly, the increase of 
wolf-killing to control livestock depredation hasn't changed much, either.

But I think you've touched on an important consideration that we, as a species, 
have never been willing to concede much of anything to other species, including 
their right to exist. We've "set aside" many places as wilderness, but that's 
ultimately provisional, because at some point in time there will be more 
pressure to "utilize" a place or a protected region, than the will to protect 
it, regardless of prior legal protections.

But having spent a fair amount of time backpacking alone in wilderness areas, I 
can relate that it's valuable and humbling to not feel like the apex predator 
in the world. Being alert to the presence of bears and lions (and getting the 
opportunity to observe and be observed by them) is an incomparable thrill.

Right now in California, we only have a single wolf, an immigrant from Oregon, 
roaming around Lassen County. 
http://www.californiawolfcenter.org/learn/wolves-in-california/

***

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> >
> > They definitely should have chosen dragons. That's all we need, more people 
> > on the fear bandwagon against wolves who are some of the most persecuted 
> > animals in history. And persecution is usually the result of legend, rumour 
> > and ignorance. In Canada we still have wolf kills up north. Add that to the 
> > continuing seal clubbings and the Canucks can appear like a 
> > mean/bloodthirsty bunch. 
> 
> I have always been a wolf supported in thoery.  I love the idea of a natural 
> herd thinner for deer and elk.  But my nephew, an avid hunter going to school 
> out West gave me a different perspective this Christmas.  He claimed that the 
> wolves that were reintroduced in his area are a larger type than originally 
> lived in that area.  And they find that if you have a lot of animals confined 
> in a pen, it is a lot easier to catch dinner than running through the woods 
> all night free range.  So they hang around farms and parents are terrified.  
> The thing about how wolves kill when they get in a livestock enclosure is 
> that they don't kill an animal and eat it like a lion.  They go on a killing 
> spree leaving dozens of dead animals in one night, because they are triggered 
> for multiple kills by instinct of flight, it is not hunger based.
> 
> So I was kind of turned around about the anti wolf crowd.  Not that I am just 
> taking their side, I haven't forgotten my ecological ideas. This is a complex 
> issue.  Small livestock farmers are surviving on a thread as it is.  Clearing 
> out this year's profit is as good as a wolf grabbing his throat if he can't 
> support his family.  They are competitors to humans.  And we as a species 
> didn't make it this far by just conceding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > I was drawn to this movie by Liam Neeson, who is often a 
> > > commanding presence in movies. And, as survival/adventure
> > > tales go, it's pretty standard. An ordinary guy, whose Day
> > > Job it is to shoot dragons to keep them from wreaking havoc
> > > among the tasty human workers in Alaska's oil fields, is
> > > depressed to the point of suicide. But something intervenes
> > > in his suicide attempt, and he gets on a plane with a bunch
> > > of other guys the next day as planned.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately, the plane crashes, leaving only seven of the
> > > guys still alive. For now. Trouble is, they are surrounded
> > > by a herd of dragons, who start picking the guys off one by
> > > one as they wander away from the plane to take a pee. So 
> > > Liam Neeson -- obviously leader material because he gets
> > > top billing in the movie -- convinces them to head for the
> > > woods, where the dragons might be less able to get at them.
> > > Adventure ensues, with our hero now fighting for his life
> > > the day after wanting to end it. 
> > > 
> > > What's that you say? Dragons? 
> > > 
> > > OK, "The Grey" isn't really about dragons. Insert "wolves"
> > > above wherever I mentioned dragons.
> > > 
> > > The thing is, it just as well *could* have been dragons.
> > > There have been almost as many documented attacks of humans
> > > by dragons in North America as there have been attacks of
> > > humans by wolves. You can count the number of documented
> > > wolf attacks on a couple of fingers. Maybe one or two less
> > > for dragon attacks.
> > > 
> > > Although "The Grey" is a passable fictional adventure story, 
> > > I'm kinda offended because it's *total* fiction. In Asia, 
> > > there are cases 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Super Bowl commercials

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> I love the Budweiser commercials. Check it out:
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veQAJ4qlltU

Oh, gee, I never saw that one. How fabulous.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Super Bowl commercials

[awoelflebater]

I love the Budweiser commercials. Check it out:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veQAJ4qlltU

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung  wrote:
>
> Bhairitu,  How can you not enjoy the creativity of the Super Bowl ads?  Sure 
> it's for poisons and trivialities, but there's so much entertainment value.  
> It's not like you're being asked to enjoy the creative products of Nazis 
> using human skin to make lamp shades even though it can be framed suchly. Why 
> train your mind to be, well, so sour?  How does that serve you?  Does it keep 
> you on some sort of "Orange Alert" that you feel keeps you from being 
> brainwashed by the ads?  What?  
> 
> And as for sports, that's one thing, but what about fitness?  If you're not 
> exercising, would you take a testimonial from me that it is not only fun but 
> amazingly beneficial in obvious ways?
> 
> You're one of the good guys; hate to see you giving such bandwidth to so much 
> angsteven though it's Kali Yuga.  
> 
> Edg
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >
> > On 02/03/2012 11:39 PM, raunchydog wrote:
> > > More Super Bowl Commercials
> > >
> > > And the winner is... "Fucking for Flowers" (Teleflora - Super Bowl Ad - 
> > > Adriana Lima)
> > >
> > > http://www.starpulse.com/news/Kevin_Blair/2012/02/03/adriana_lima_sizzles_in_telefloras_ear
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > >> They leaked the Super Bowl commercials, so why bother watching the game? 
> > >> Watch the game, it will be more interesting than the commercials this 
> > >> year. "One Rotten Tomato" least rotten to most rotten:
> > >>
> > >> 1 Chevy Sonic "Stunt Anthem" Commercial: exciting, cool stunts.
> > >> 2 Toyota Camry's "It's Reinvented" Commercial: loved the poop-free baby.
> > >> 3 John Stamos for Dannon Oikos Greek Yogurt: liked feisty girl head-butt.
> > >> 4 Ferris Bueller's Honda CR-V Ad: Broderick out of the mothballs...Meh.
> > >> 5 "The Dog Strikes Back" by VW: the dog was terrific, the unnecessary 
> > >> Star War characters ruined a perfectly good commercial.
> > >> 6 "The Bark Side" by VW: I love dogs but this was just plain irritating.
> > >> 7 Will Arnett's Hulu Ad: dumb.
> > >> 8 "Hot Wild Girls -- Crash the Super Bowl" for Doritos: dumber.
> > >> 9 David Beckham for H&M: repulsively narcissistic. Might as well just 
> > >> show his dick already.
> > >>
> > >> http://culture.wnyc.org/articles/features/2012/feb/03/watch-super-bowl-2012-commercials/
> > 
> > Who wants to be part of Amerikan "group think"?  I don't.  Never watch 
> > the Stupor Bowl (not into sports anyway) and could care less about the 
> > commercials. ;-)
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Throw the Jew Down the Well

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo
> > 
> > That'd been rather nasty without Mr. Cohen himself
> >  being a Jew?
> 
> Agreed :-)
> 
> > Seems to show how easy it is for some people to "turn"
> > antisemitic??
> 
> Many seem to simply sing along, probably not thinking much
> about the text.

Seems it may not be quite as bad as it appears in that
video. Cohen performed the song after doing two hours of
a comedy routine at the club, so everyone knew he wasn't
on the level, that it was all an act. And at another
point in the routine he'd sung about throwing his own
family down the well.

http://www.forward.com/articles/5116/

At worst, it's unclear whether the patrons approved of
the anti-Semitism in the song or were just playing along,
knowing it was satire. I'd suspect some of both. Cohen's
*intention* has been to show how uninhibited people are
about revealing their own bigotry when they think they're
in sympathetic company, but this may not have been the
most convincing example given the full context.





> 
> And there are no actors, it's filmed in real situations when "Borat" is 
> travelling around the country, cameracrew in tow. :-) 
> Unfortunately many americans did'nt find it very funny.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Trend Analysis For Dummies

[awoelflebater]

"His whole schtick relied heavily on the naivete of MIU students, sidhas and 
meditators."

Can we all possibly come up with another word for "shtick'? It makes Robin 
sound like some sort of Jewish stand up comedian. (I can already envision the 
comeback on this one.)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Feb 4, 2012, at 1:29 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > >  > > > > > > conducting all activity in the universe>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yeah, me too.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Oh, you somehow forgot to include the words "He said
> > > > > his experience of Unity Consciousness was that..."
> > > > 
> > > > I didn't forget. It is his claim I am challenging,
> > > 
> > > You challenge his description of what he experienced?
> > 
> > His interpretation of what it was an what it means. I also challenge the 
> > belief system he still maintains about how he happened to have them, the 
> > whole Vedic gods explanation.
> 
> I'd have to say, I've never heard any classical description or experiential 
> View of realization a la Advaita Vedanta's brahmi-chetana ("Unity") that 
> jives in the least with RWC's so-called Unity experience. The Vedic God's 
> thang was a real twist.
> 
> His whole schtick relied heavily on the naivete of MIU students, sidhas and 
> meditators. That's not to say the Neoadvaita movement doesn't have plenty of 
> naivete to go around, they clearly do, although RWC largely preceded that 
> movement. It's interesting though, Idiosyncratic personality types who may or 
> may not also carry some Schizotypal characteristics, share many of the 
> positive qualities I've see in RWC:
> 
> Character Strengths and Virtues
> 
>   • Originality, integrity, bravery, confidence.
>   • Independence, purposefulness.
>   • Creativity, artistry.
>   • Openness to experience, curiosity, spirituality.
>   • Open-mindedness.
>   • Alertness, sensitivity.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Review (of sorts): "The Grey"

[awoelflebater]

Well, luckily my portion of all the cows, pigs and sheep I haven't eaten for 35 
years I can chalk up as having donated to the wolves. They are welcome to my 
portion.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> >
> > They definitely should have chosen dragons. That's all we need, more people 
> > on the fear bandwagon against wolves who are some of the most persecuted 
> > animals in history. And persecution is usually the result of legend, rumour 
> > and ignorance. In Canada we still have wolf kills up north. Add that to the 
> > continuing seal clubbings and the Canucks can appear like a 
> > mean/bloodthirsty bunch. 
> 
> I have always been a wolf supported in thoery.  I love the idea of a natural 
> herd thinner for deer and elk.  But my nephew, an avid hunter going to school 
> out West gave me a different perspective this Christmas.  He claimed that the 
> wolves that were reintroduced in his area are a larger type than originally 
> lived in that area.  And they find that if you have a lot of animals confined 
> in a pen, it is a lot easier to catch dinner than running through the woods 
> all night free range.  So they hang around farms and parents are terrified.  
> The thing about how wolves kill when they get in a livestock enclosure is 
> that they don't kill an animal and eat it like a lion.  They go on a killing 
> spree leaving dozens of dead animals in one night, because they are triggered 
> for multiple kills by instinct of flight, it is not hunger based.
> 
> So I was kind of turned around about the anti wolf crowd.  Not that I am just 
> taking their side, I haven't forgotten my ecological ideas. This is a complex 
> issue.  Small livestock farmers are surviving on a thread as it is.  Clearing 
> out this year's profit is as good as a wolf grabbing his throat if he can't 
> support his family.  They are competitors to humans.  And we as a species 
> didn't make it this far by just conceding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > I was drawn to this movie by Liam Neeson, who is often a 
> > > commanding presence in movies. And, as survival/adventure
> > > tales go, it's pretty standard. An ordinary guy, whose Day
> > > Job it is to shoot dragons to keep them from wreaking havoc
> > > among the tasty human workers in Alaska's oil fields, is
> > > depressed to the point of suicide. But something intervenes
> > > in his suicide attempt, and he gets on a plane with a bunch
> > > of other guys the next day as planned.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately, the plane crashes, leaving only seven of the
> > > guys still alive. For now. Trouble is, they are surrounded
> > > by a herd of dragons, who start picking the guys off one by
> > > one as they wander away from the plane to take a pee. So 
> > > Liam Neeson -- obviously leader material because he gets
> > > top billing in the movie -- convinces them to head for the
> > > woods, where the dragons might be less able to get at them.
> > > Adventure ensues, with our hero now fighting for his life
> > > the day after wanting to end it. 
> > > 
> > > What's that you say? Dragons? 
> > > 
> > > OK, "The Grey" isn't really about dragons. Insert "wolves"
> > > above wherever I mentioned dragons.
> > > 
> > > The thing is, it just as well *could* have been dragons.
> > > There have been almost as many documented attacks of humans
> > > by dragons in North America as there have been attacks of
> > > humans by wolves. You can count the number of documented
> > > wolf attacks on a couple of fingers. Maybe one or two less
> > > for dragon attacks.
> > > 
> > > Although "The Grey" is a passable fictional adventure story, 
> > > I'm kinda offended because it's *total* fiction. In Asia, 
> > > there are cases of wolves attacking humans. In North America,
> > > one or two at the most. It just doesn't happen. 
> > > 
> > > But the filmmakers decided that the public *believes* it
> > > happens (after all, if Sarah Palin shoots wolves from a 
> > > helicopter, they've *got* to be dangerous, right?), so they
> > > thought, "Let's make a movie about guys fighting for their
> > > lives against a pack of hungry wolves."
> > > 
> > > They should've chosen dragons. It would have been more 
> > > realistic, and it might have been a better movie. 
> > > 
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRWF4cepn8U
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Review (of sorts): "The Grey"

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> They definitely should have chosen dragons. That's all we need, more people 
> on the fear bandwagon against wolves who are some of the most persecuted 
> animals in history. And persecution is usually the result of legend, rumour 
> and ignorance. In Canada we still have wolf kills up north. Add that to the 
> continuing seal clubbings and the Canucks can appear like a mean/bloodthirsty 
> bunch. 

I have always been a wolf supported in thoery.  I love the idea of a natural 
herd thinner for deer and elk.  But my nephew, an avid hunter going to school 
out West gave me a different perspective this Christmas.  He claimed that the 
wolves that were reintroduced in his area are a larger type than originally 
lived in that area.  And they find that if you have a lot of animals confined 
in a pen, it is a lot easier to catch dinner than running through the woods all 
night free range.  So they hang around farms and parents are terrified.  The 
thing about how wolves kill when they get in a livestock enclosure is that they 
don't kill an animal and eat it like a lion.  They go on a killing spree 
leaving dozens of dead animals in one night, because they are triggered for 
multiple kills by instinct of flight, it is not hunger based.

So I was kind of turned around about the anti wolf crowd.  Not that I am just 
taking their side, I haven't forgotten my ecological ideas. This is a complex 
issue.  Small livestock farmers are surviving on a thread as it is.  Clearing 
out this year's profit is as good as a wolf grabbing his throat if he can't 
support his family.  They are competitors to humans.  And we as a species 
didn't make it this far by just conceding.






> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > I was drawn to this movie by Liam Neeson, who is often a 
> > commanding presence in movies. And, as survival/adventure
> > tales go, it's pretty standard. An ordinary guy, whose Day
> > Job it is to shoot dragons to keep them from wreaking havoc
> > among the tasty human workers in Alaska's oil fields, is
> > depressed to the point of suicide. But something intervenes
> > in his suicide attempt, and he gets on a plane with a bunch
> > of other guys the next day as planned.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, the plane crashes, leaving only seven of the
> > guys still alive. For now. Trouble is, they are surrounded
> > by a herd of dragons, who start picking the guys off one by
> > one as they wander away from the plane to take a pee. So 
> > Liam Neeson -- obviously leader material because he gets
> > top billing in the movie -- convinces them to head for the
> > woods, where the dragons might be less able to get at them.
> > Adventure ensues, with our hero now fighting for his life
> > the day after wanting to end it. 
> > 
> > What's that you say? Dragons? 
> > 
> > OK, "The Grey" isn't really about dragons. Insert "wolves"
> > above wherever I mentioned dragons.
> > 
> > The thing is, it just as well *could* have been dragons.
> > There have been almost as many documented attacks of humans
> > by dragons in North America as there have been attacks of
> > humans by wolves. You can count the number of documented
> > wolf attacks on a couple of fingers. Maybe one or two less
> > for dragon attacks.
> > 
> > Although "The Grey" is a passable fictional adventure story, 
> > I'm kinda offended because it's *total* fiction. In Asia, 
> > there are cases of wolves attacking humans. In North America,
> > one or two at the most. It just doesn't happen. 
> > 
> > But the filmmakers decided that the public *believes* it
> > happens (after all, if Sarah Palin shoots wolves from a 
> > helicopter, they've *got* to be dangerous, right?), so they
> > thought, "Let's make a movie about guys fighting for their
> > lives against a pack of hungry wolves."
> > 
> > They should've chosen dragons. It would have been more 
> > realistic, and it might have been a better movie. 
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRWF4cepn8U
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: What is ACTA?

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping 
> > direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. 
> > Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court 
> > order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply 
> > globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than 
> > SOPA or PIPA.
> > 
> > http://youtu.be/N8Xg_C2YmG0
> 
> In what appears to be the opposite of a Polish joke,
> Poland is so far the only country with the common 
> sense to stop this treaty dead in its tracks. Good 
> for them.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120203/eu-poland-websites-attacked/
>

The fight for a free and open Internet has only just begun, and will likely 
never end. Right this second, there are a number of potentially dangerous 
efforts, from governments around the globe, that could be as detrimental to our 
online world as SOPA and PIPA may have been (or could be in the future). And 
while many of these efforts specifically target foreign countries, the 
connected nature of the Internet means they concern us all. Here is a brief 
rundown of those efforts, and what you can do to push back.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/occupy-this-5-internet-regulations-we-need-to-destroy/

[FairfieldLife] Mariana Caplan: New Interview on Buddha at the Gas Pump - 02/05/2012

[Rick Archer]

 


blog updates from


Buddha at the Gas Pump


   


published 02/05/2012


108. Mariana Caplan 

 

Feb 04, 2012 10:53 pm | Rick

Mariana Caplan, PhD, MFT, is a licensed psychotherapist, professor of yogic and 
transpersonal psychologies, and the author of seven books in the fields of 
psychology and spirituality, including, The Guru Question: The Perils and 
Awards of Choosing a Spiritual Teacher … Continue reading  

 →

   
108_mariana_caplan.mp3 

  36.7 MB

comments 

  | read more 

 

 

 Like 108. Mariana Caplan on Facebook   

 Google Plus One Button   

 share on Twitter

   
Elsewhere

·  

 Visit My Blog

·  

 Share This with a friend

·  

 Follow me on Twitter

·  

 RSS feed

   


view email in a browser 

  | unsubscribe 

  r...@searchsummit.com | update your subscription profile 

  


Regular announcement of new interviews posted at http://batgap.com.
Add us to your address book 

 

Copyright (C) 2012 Buddha at the Gas Pump All rights reserved.

  

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: When did America become East Germany?

[obbajeeba]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"  wrote:
>
> Bhairitu:
> > I'm proud to be "suspicious" to the paranoid 
> > schizophrenics running our snoop bureaus.
> > 
> You sound really scared.
>


LOL!  There is no sound on typed forum thread lymrics. Hahaha

[FairfieldLife] Re: Super Bowl commercials

[Duveyoung]

Bhairitu,  How can you not enjoy the creativity of the Super Bowl ads?  Sure 
it's for poisons and trivialities, but there's so much entertainment value.  
It's not like you're being asked to enjoy the creative products of Nazis using 
human skin to make lamp shades even though it can be framed suchly. Why train 
your mind to be, well, so sour?  How does that serve you?  Does it keep you on 
some sort of "Orange Alert" that you feel keeps you from being brainwashed by 
the ads?  What?  

And as for sports, that's one thing, but what about fitness?  If you're not 
exercising, would you take a testimonial from me that it is not only fun but 
amazingly beneficial in obvious ways?

You're one of the good guys; hate to see you giving such bandwidth to so much 
angsteven though it's Kali Yuga.  

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> On 02/03/2012 11:39 PM, raunchydog wrote:
> > More Super Bowl Commercials
> >
> > And the winner is... "Fucking for Flowers" (Teleflora - Super Bowl Ad - 
> > Adriana Lima)
> >
> > http://www.starpulse.com/news/Kevin_Blair/2012/02/03/adriana_lima_sizzles_in_telefloras_ear
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >> They leaked the Super Bowl commercials, so why bother watching the game? 
> >> Watch the game, it will be more interesting than the commercials this 
> >> year. "One Rotten Tomato" least rotten to most rotten:
> >>
> >> 1 Chevy Sonic "Stunt Anthem" Commercial: exciting, cool stunts.
> >> 2 Toyota Camry's "It's Reinvented" Commercial: loved the poop-free baby.
> >> 3 John Stamos for Dannon Oikos Greek Yogurt: liked feisty girl head-butt.
> >> 4 Ferris Bueller's Honda CR-V Ad: Broderick out of the mothballs...Meh.
> >> 5 "The Dog Strikes Back" by VW: the dog was terrific, the unnecessary Star 
> >> War characters ruined a perfectly good commercial.
> >> 6 "The Bark Side" by VW: I love dogs but this was just plain irritating.
> >> 7 Will Arnett's Hulu Ad: dumb.
> >> 8 "Hot Wild Girls -- Crash the Super Bowl" for Doritos: dumber.
> >> 9 David Beckham for H&M: repulsively narcissistic. Might as well just show 
> >> his dick already.
> >>
> >> http://culture.wnyc.org/articles/features/2012/feb/03/watch-super-bowl-2012-commercials/
> 
> Who wants to be part of Amerikan "group think"?  I don't.  Never watch 
> the Stupor Bowl (not into sports anyway) and could care less about the 
> commercials. ;-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Review (of sorts): "The Grey"

[merudanda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OiOlnoyljk



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
wrote:
>
> They definitely should have chosen dragons. That's all we need, more
people on the fear bandwagon against wolves who are some of the most
persecuted animals in history. And persecution is usually the result of
legend, rumour and ignorance. In Canada we still have wolf kills up
north. Add that to the continuing seal clubbings and the Canucks can
appear like a mean/bloodthirsty bunch.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > I was drawn to this movie by Liam Neeson, who is often a
> > commanding presence in movies. And, as survival/adventure
> > tales go, it's pretty standard. An ordinary guy, whose Day
> > Job it is to shoot dragons to keep them from wreaking havoc
> > among the tasty human workers in Alaska's oil fields, is
> > depressed to the point of suicide. But something intervenes
> > in his suicide attempt, and he gets on a plane with a bunch
> > of other guys the next day as planned.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the plane crashes, leaving only seven of the
> > guys still alive. For now. Trouble is, they are surrounded
> > by a herd of dragons, who start picking the guys off one by
> > one as they wander away from the plane to take a pee. So
> > Liam Neeson -- obviously leader material because he gets
> > top billing in the movie -- convinces them to head for the
> > woods, where the dragons might be less able to get at them.
> > Adventure ensues, with our hero now fighting for his life
> > the day after wanting to end it.
> >
> > What's that you say? Dragons?
> >
> > OK, "The Grey" isn't really about dragons. Insert "wolves"
> > above wherever I mentioned dragons.
> >
> > The thing is, it just as well *could* have been dragons.
> > There have been almost as many documented attacks of humans
> > by dragons in North America as there have been attacks of
> > humans by wolves. You can count the number of documented
> > wolf attacks on a couple of fingers. Maybe one or two less
> > for dragon attacks.
> >
> > Although "The Grey" is a passable fictional adventure story,
> > I'm kinda offended because it's *total* fiction. In Asia,
> > there are cases of wolves attacking humans. In North America,
> > one or two at the most. It just doesn't happen.
> >
> > But the filmmakers decided that the public *believes* it
> > happens (after all, if Sarah Palin shoots wolves from a
> > helicopter, they've *got* to be dangerous, right?), so they
> > thought, "Let's make a movie about guys fighting for their
> > lives against a pack of hungry wolves."
> >
> > They should've chosen dragons. It would have been more
> > realistic, and it might have been a better movie.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRWF4cepn8U
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Trend Analysis For Dummies

[Vaj]

On Feb 4, 2012, at 1:29 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > >  > > > > > conducting all activity in the universe>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yeah, me too.
> > > > 
> > > > Oh, you somehow forgot to include the words "He said
> > > > his experience of Unity Consciousness was that..."
> > > 
> > > I didn't forget. It is his claim I am challenging,
> > 
> > You challenge his description of what he experienced?
> 
> His interpretation of what it was an what it means. I also challenge the 
> belief system he still maintains about how he happened to have them, the 
> whole Vedic gods explanation.

I'd have to say, I've never heard any classical description or experiential 
View of realization a la Advaita Vedanta's brahmi-chetana ("Unity") that jives 
in the least with RWC's so-called Unity experience. The Vedic God's thang was a 
real twist.

His whole schtick relied heavily on the naivete of MIU students, sidhas and 
meditators. That's not to say the Neoadvaita movement doesn't have plenty of 
naivete to go around, they clearly do, although RWC largely preceded that 
movement. It's interesting though, Idiosyncratic personality types who may or 
may not also carry some Schizotypal characteristics, share many of the positive 
qualities I've see in RWC:

Character Strengths and Virtues

• Originality, integrity, bravery, confidence.
• Independence, purposefulness.
• Creativity, artistry.
• Openness to experience, curiosity, spirituality.
• Open-mindedness.
• Alertness, sensitivity.

[FairfieldLife] Re: When did America become East Germany?

[Richard J. Williams]

Bhairitu:
> I'm proud to be "suspicious" to the paranoid 
> schizophrenics running our snoop bureaus.
> 
You sound really scared. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: When did America become East Germany?

[obbajeeba]

Nice stuff.
I still get a chuckle when standing in line waiting and waiting for 
authorization and the swiping of multiple cards and waiting for the signature 
or the PIN number to be administered as the card(s) may or may not go through 
in the grocery line of people in front of me. 

-Goose Step Sally

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> 
> Remember that Visa check card commercial?Or you know who would love this
> commercial, too?  [:D] Not only North-Korea -Pre -WWII Germans.
> 
> Just throwing more oil into fire,.. [:D]
> 
> Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
> temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
> as cited in The Papers of Benjamin  Franklin, vol. 6, p. 242
> 
> Could it be when you make a transaction with a credit or debit card, you
> leave an electronic "paper trail" which can be picked up by your
> bank, or possibly a law enforcement agency?
> 
> By using a credit card to buy a loaf of bread, could the FBI and TSA put
> you on their terrorist watch list? Would they'll file it under
> "suspicious activity", and perhaps even put you on a
> "no-fly" list?
> 
> Cash is what old people use. Cash is what drug lords stuff in
> briefcases. Cash is for terrorist
> 
> 
> 
> Or the "Life takes Visa (Google)"argument
> 
> Remember that Visa check card commercial?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1C_UQHwd8M
> 
> 
>   Long lines of people are moving quickly through the fast food assembly
> line where the jolly workers are turning out lunch at an amazing clip.
> Pick up a tray, grab your food, swipe your Visa check card and get
> through the line. Fast!
> 
> Everything is running like a well-oiled machine to a happy tune until
> one unsuspecting customer happens to pull out his wallet filled with
> (Gasp!)cash.
> 
> Oh, no!
> 
> This guy performs the unthinkable act, which brings everything to a
> screeching halt.
> 
> He gets rear-ended by the mindless souls behind him as trays and food go
> flying, the machine jams, and the music stops!
> 
> If looks could kill, this guy would be dead...
> 
> As you wink to the customer behind you letting them know that you know
> that they know that you're part of the "VISA" club, the
> machine prompts you to input your pin number, in which you can't
> remember whether it's your youngest son's birthday coupled with
> your anniversary, and a multi-billion dollar  corporation is tracking
> your every purchase, cross referencing it with your previous buying
> habits, and then perhaps selling your name, information, likes,
> dislikes, and purchase history since you were eighteen to
> governments,companies, or marketing firms in violation of your privacy
> agreement. [:(]
> 
> Yeah..,you're awesome. You reek of success. If you reek too much,
> this same company will not complain or help you stop your bank, store,
> or credit card Company from jacking your rate from 8% to 22%and we
> going to
> 
> 
> Another POV: Life takes Visa ... and piles up debt.
> 
> Hurry up, don't think. Blow through your wad as fast as you can. Don't
> worry about how much you have in the bank just slip into a spending coma
> with little or no thought to whether you can actually afford the soda.
> 
> There is no doubt that cash is inconvenient. It makes spending a bit
> more difficult. And that is a wonderful safety measure. It makes you
> plan ahead. You can't spend more cash than you have in your possession.
> You have to think -- something that Visa and MasterCard don't want us to
> do all over the world.
> 
> What happened to the old USA spirit of individualism and caring about
> people having a future to look forward to? When did the music die?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was there somebody worrying about Wiki-leaks with their silly
> „secret" government conversation?
> 
> u
> 
> Will FFL now forcibly come to an end? [;)]
> 
> 
> 
> Now if I could just get that bouncy tune out of my head ...
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >
> > I'm proud to be "suspicious" to the paranoid schizophrenics running
> our
> > snoop bureaus.
> >
> > "According To The FBI, Internet Privacy Is Now Considered To Be
> > Suspicious Activity":
> >
> http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/according-to-the-fbi-internet-\
> privacy-is-now-considered-to-be-suspicious-activity
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Review (of sorts): "The Grey"

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> They definitely should have chosen dragons. That's all we 
> need, more people on the fear bandwagon against wolves who 
> are some of the most persecuted animals in history. And 
> persecution is usually the result of legend, rumour and 
> ignorance. In Canada we still have wolf kills up north. 
> Add that to the continuing seal clubbings and the Canucks 
> can appear like a mean/bloodthirsty bunch. 

True that. But remember it was a Canuck who first brought
the plight -- and the reality -- of wolves to the attention
of the general public. Farley Mowat, in "Never Cry Wolf."

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > I was drawn to this movie by Liam Neeson, who is often a 
> > commanding presence in movies. And, as survival/adventure
> > tales go, it's pretty standard. An ordinary guy, whose Day
> > Job it is to shoot dragons to keep them from wreaking havoc
> > among the tasty human workers in Alaska's oil fields, is
> > depressed to the point of suicide. But something intervenes
> > in his suicide attempt, and he gets on a plane with a bunch
> > of other guys the next day as planned.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, the plane crashes, leaving only seven of the
> > guys still alive. For now. Trouble is, they are surrounded
> > by a herd of dragons, who start picking the guys off one by
> > one as they wander away from the plane to take a pee. So 
> > Liam Neeson -- obviously leader material because he gets
> > top billing in the movie -- convinces them to head for the
> > woods, where the dragons might be less able to get at them.
> > Adventure ensues, with our hero now fighting for his life
> > the day after wanting to end it. 
> > 
> > What's that you say? Dragons? 
> > 
> > OK, "The Grey" isn't really about dragons. Insert "wolves"
> > above wherever I mentioned dragons.
> > 
> > The thing is, it just as well *could* have been dragons.
> > There have been almost as many documented attacks of humans
> > by dragons in North America as there have been attacks of
> > humans by wolves. You can count the number of documented
> > wolf attacks on a couple of fingers. Maybe one or two less
> > for dragon attacks.
> > 
> > Although "The Grey" is a passable fictional adventure story, 
> > I'm kinda offended because it's *total* fiction. In Asia, 
> > there are cases of wolves attacking humans. In North America,
> > one or two at the most. It just doesn't happen. 
> > 
> > But the filmmakers decided that the public *believes* it
> > happens (after all, if Sarah Palin shoots wolves from a 
> > helicopter, they've *got* to be dangerous, right?), so they
> > thought, "Let's make a movie about guys fighting for their
> > lives against a pack of hungry wolves."
> > 
> > They should've chosen dragons. It would have been more 
> > realistic, and it might have been a better movie. 
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRWF4cepn8U
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Review (of sorts): "The Grey"

[awoelflebater]

They definitely should have chosen dragons. That's all we need, more people on 
the fear bandwagon against wolves who are some of the most persecuted animals 
in history. And persecution is usually the result of legend, rumour and 
ignorance. In Canada we still have wolf kills up north. Add that to the 
continuing seal clubbings and the Canucks can appear like a mean/bloodthirsty 
bunch. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> I was drawn to this movie by Liam Neeson, who is often a 
> commanding presence in movies. And, as survival/adventure
> tales go, it's pretty standard. An ordinary guy, whose Day
> Job it is to shoot dragons to keep them from wreaking havoc
> among the tasty human workers in Alaska's oil fields, is
> depressed to the point of suicide. But something intervenes
> in his suicide attempt, and he gets on a plane with a bunch
> of other guys the next day as planned.
> 
> Unfortunately, the plane crashes, leaving only seven of the
> guys still alive. For now. Trouble is, they are surrounded
> by a herd of dragons, who start picking the guys off one by
> one as they wander away from the plane to take a pee. So 
> Liam Neeson -- obviously leader material because he gets
> top billing in the movie -- convinces them to head for the
> woods, where the dragons might be less able to get at them.
> Adventure ensues, with our hero now fighting for his life
> the day after wanting to end it. 
> 
> What's that you say? Dragons? 
> 
> OK, "The Grey" isn't really about dragons. Insert "wolves"
> above wherever I mentioned dragons.
> 
> The thing is, it just as well *could* have been dragons.
> There have been almost as many documented attacks of humans
> by dragons in North America as there have been attacks of
> humans by wolves. You can count the number of documented
> wolf attacks on a couple of fingers. Maybe one or two less
> for dragon attacks.
> 
> Although "The Grey" is a passable fictional adventure story, 
> I'm kinda offended because it's *total* fiction. In Asia, 
> there are cases of wolves attacking humans. In North America,
> one or two at the most. It just doesn't happen. 
> 
> But the filmmakers decided that the public *believes* it
> happens (after all, if Sarah Palin shoots wolves from a 
> helicopter, they've *got* to be dangerous, right?), so they
> thought, "Let's make a movie about guys fighting for their
> lives against a pack of hungry wolves."
> 
> They should've chosen dragons. It would have been more 
> realistic, and it might have been a better movie. 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRWF4cepn8U
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: What is ACTA?

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping 
> direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. 
> Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, 
> all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, 
> rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.
> 
> http://youtu.be/N8Xg_C2YmG0

In what appears to be the opposite of a Polish joke,
Poland is so far the only country with the common 
sense to stop this treaty dead in its tracks. Good 
for them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120203/eu-poland-websites-attacked/

[FairfieldLife] What is ACTA?

[raunchydog]

Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct 
powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs 
normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal 
oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering 
the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.

http://youtu.be/N8Xg_C2YmG0

[FairfieldLife] Re: #5# Think About It... From Where Are You Coming? Where Are YouGoing?

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Paulo Barbosa" 
wrote:
>
> Think About It... From Where Are You Coming? Where Are You
> Going?
>
> "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the
> sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and
> whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the
> Spirit" (John 3:8).
>
> When God is our Guide, all our walk happens at the centre of
> His wish. And when we walk according the will of God, the
> blessings follow us all time. Think about it...


Follow the suggestions of this Rishi and you'll get there.



>

[FairfieldLife] #5# Think About It... From Where Are You Coming? Where Are YouGoing?

[Paulo Barbosa]

Think About It... From Where Are You Coming? Where  Are  You
Going?

"The wind bloweth where it listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the
sound thereof, but canst not  tell  whence  it  cometh,  and
whither it goeth: so is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the
Spirit" (John 3:8).

When God is our Guide, all our walk happens at the centre of
His wish. And when we walk according the will  of  God,  the
blessings follow us all time. Think about it...

Paulo Barbosa

[FairfieldLife] Re: Throw the Jew Down the Well

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo
> >
> 
> That'd been rather nasty without Mr. Cohen himself
>  being a Jew?

Agreed :-)

> 
> Seems to show how easy it is for some people to "turn"
> antisemitic??

Many seem to simply sing along, probably not thinking much about the text.


And there are no actors, it's filmed in real situations when "Borat" is 
travelling around the country, cameracrew in tow. :-) 
Unfortunately many americans did'nt find it very funny.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Throw the Jew Down the Well

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo
>

That'd been rather nasty without Mr. Cohen himself
 being a Jew?

Seems to show how easy it is for some people to "turn"
antisemitic??

[FairfieldLife] Review (of sorts): "The Grey"

[turquoiseb]

I was drawn to this movie by Liam Neeson, who is often a 
commanding presence in movies. And, as survival/adventure
tales go, it's pretty standard. An ordinary guy, whose Day
Job it is to shoot dragons to keep them from wreaking havoc
among the tasty human workers in Alaska's oil fields, is
depressed to the point of suicide. But something intervenes
in his suicide attempt, and he gets on a plane with a bunch
of other guys the next day as planned.

Unfortunately, the plane crashes, leaving only seven of the
guys still alive. For now. Trouble is, they are surrounded
by a herd of dragons, who start picking the guys off one by
one as they wander away from the plane to take a pee. So 
Liam Neeson -- obviously leader material because he gets
top billing in the movie -- convinces them to head for the
woods, where the dragons might be less able to get at them.
Adventure ensues, with our hero now fighting for his life
the day after wanting to end it. 

What's that you say? Dragons? 

OK, "The Grey" isn't really about dragons. Insert "wolves"
above wherever I mentioned dragons.

The thing is, it just as well *could* have been dragons.
There have been almost as many documented attacks of humans
by dragons in North America as there have been attacks of
humans by wolves. You can count the number of documented
wolf attacks on a couple of fingers. Maybe one or two less
for dragon attacks.

Although "The Grey" is a passable fictional adventure story, 
I'm kinda offended because it's *total* fiction. In Asia, 
there are cases of wolves attacking humans. In North America,
one or two at the most. It just doesn't happen. 

But the filmmakers decided that the public *believes* it
happens (after all, if Sarah Palin shoots wolves from a 
helicopter, they've *got* to be dangerous, right?), so they
thought, "Let's make a movie about guys fighting for their
lives against a pack of hungry wolves."

They should've chosen dragons. It would have been more 
realistic, and it might have been a better movie. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRWF4cepn8U

[FairfieldLife] Re: Borat tries to buy a slave

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdp21zzu41Y&feature=related
>

"Borat" might be the only movie watching which I've laughed
tears in my eyes. Prolly because the reactions of most
of the "actors" are real and genuine... 

[FairfieldLife] Flashmob for Pekka

[cardemaister]

Flashmob(?) supporting the homosexual presidential
candidate, Mr. Pekka Haavisto (~ Peter Lots-of-Aspens):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaKko3VGAnY