date:20121207

Steve baby - this is an example of why you are branded as an idiot. You can't 
even come up with something clever, pertinent, original, inventive, intelligent 
even while indulging in slander. 


On Dec 7, 2012, at 7:17 PM, "seventhray1"  
wrote:

> Share,
> 
> Always consider the source.  As Ravi has said, much of his dysfunctionality 
> is a matter of the public record, except for those posts (a considerable 
> amount) he has managed to have expunged.
> 
> He is on the record here, saying that he issued an ultimatum to his wife that 
> she renounce Amma as her guru and instead accept him as her guru.
> 
> So, as I've said, consider the source.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  
> wrote:
> >
> > Share - I have to add, your posts to this thread have hilarious in their
> > utter clueless-ness.
> > 
> > You are not a person who has, so far shown any awareness, sensitivity,
> > maturity - intellectual and/or emotional, intelligence to understand the
> > nuances of any issue to be really compassionate. There is a difference
> > between fake niceness and genuine compassion - in the absence of above your
> > responses to Robin's posts come across as hilarious or malicious depending
> > on my mood.
> > 
> > I would say you are very much like Barry except he is overtly mean and you
> > are not. Anyway I don't know what the sound of two paranoid, delusional
> > people conversing is - I don't think it's possible, they are too..well
> > paranoid and alike to get along with each other. So you are better off
> > spending your time on FFL chatting to people like LG, Xeno and others if
> > you don't want people to pile on you.
> > 
> > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM, authfriend authfriend@... wrote:
> > 
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they
> > > > would have been under the influence of his self proclaimed
> > > > state of mystical hallucination. Your ignoring, in relation
> > > > to his intentions, that self proclamation of his
> > >
> > > Of course, I don't "ignore" it. You say that without having
> > > any idea of how I view this: You just made it up. Typical.
> > >
> > > I *disagree* that Robin's intentions would have been affected,
> > > made somehow negative, by his enlightenment. I see no reason
> > > why that would have been the case.
> > >
> > > You are taking "delusion" and "hallucination" too literally;
> > > those terms are only very roughly approximate, because there
> > > simply is no vocabulary to describe what happened to him.
> > >
> > > He himself has said his enlightenment was *real*, so there's
> > > obviously a paradoxical element to this that you haven't
> > > bothered to take into account.
> > >
> > >
> > > > perpetuates
> > > > an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT and is not IMO
> > > > helpful in the present. This is what I am addressing, the
> > > > present.
> > >
> > > Yes, I know you are. Your sole interest is in finding ways
> > > to portray him negatively *in the present*, and you'll make
> > > up whatever metaphysical "rules" you need to in order to do
> > > that.
> > >
> > > Your "perpetuate an aspect of hallucination into the
> > > PRESENT" doesn't make any sense. *You* don't even know what
> > > you mean by it.
> > >
> > > You have a desperate need to make Robin a Bad Guy to justify
> > > the disgusting way you've behaved toward him.
> > >
> > > I stand by what I said. The negative intelligences that
> > > brought about Robin's enlightenment *used* his good
> > > intentions--and those of everyone in his group--to further
> > > their own goals. That did not turn them into *bad*
> > > intentions. The bad intentions were those of the negative
> > > intelligences that took advantage of his innocence, his
> > > idealism, his loving nature, his desire to help others
> > > be the best they could possibly be.
> > >
> > >
> > > Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes
> > > > about all this and will probably do so again, I will
> > > > continue to address issues if I think it is helpful to do
> > > > so.
> > >
> > > Robin is a good and honorable man who treated you with
> > > fairness, respect, and compassion even after you turned
> > > on him.
> > >
> > > You can do nothing "helpful" where Robin is concerned other
> > > than wake up, smell the coffee, and acknowledge how
> > > appallingly badly and dishonestly you've treated him due
> > > to your inability to face your own weaknesses. If you are
> > > incapable of dealing with that reality, just keep your
> > > poisonous trap shut about him.
> > >
> > > You are the most toxic personality I have ever encountered.
> > > You make my skin crawl.
> > >
> > > And I notice you slithered away from responding to my
> > > question:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Yes, the whole situation became confusing, agonizing and
> > > > > eventually poignant. Even more reason to immediately name
> > > > >

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

2012-12-07 Thread salyavin808



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> And here is the formal ending of our correspondence:
> 
> From: Blue Caboose  
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:56 PM
> Subject: what I wish to tell you now
> 
> Dear Share,
> 
> I wish only for you to know that after everything we have said to each other 
> that I respect you and love you and want you to be happy and to know whatever 
> truth God would have you know and understand. I only want you to go to 
> heaven, whatever that may be, Share. I have played and teased and challenged 
> and danced and argued with you; but now it is at an end, and I must be quiet 
> and accept the will of reality in all things. For us, Share, I believe that 
> means that I must leave you to your life and your very earnest and 
> sacrificial strivings. Please believe me when I tell you that I want only 
> your happiness, and in my own way I shall pray for this. It has been a 
> privilege of a kind to carry on our conversations all these months, but now, 
> in the writing of this letter, I just want to express only my support for 
> you. I have a feeling you will find your way in this terrible complexity and 
> tragedy and beauty and miracle that is human existence in the 21st century. 
> That is it, Share: I have said all that I have wanted to say, or need to say. 
> Go safely and know that Robin loves you.

Jesus, you are one pompous, sanctimonios, self-righteous windbag
aren't you. No need for professional qualifications to work that
out!
 
> Robin
> 
> Your response:
> 
> I will miss you.

And just what do you get from publishing something someone wanted
kept off-list? And why are you so free of embarrassment that you
wouldn't want *this* kept off-list?

Re: [FairfieldLife] For Emily: A Question for a Washington State Resident

2012-12-07 Thread Emily Reyn

Hi John:

This is the billion dollar question.  The feds have not weighed in yet on the 
latest legalization for the citizen population; this is a real experiment.  Re: 
medical marijuana, which was already legal, in August, the feds cracked down as 
follows and many places closed up/moved to get into compliance:  

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/08/23/feds-tell-23-pot-dispensaries-near-schools-to-shut-down-or-face-raids&view=comments

"Today (August 12, 2012), the Drug Enforcement Administration told 23 medical 
marijuana dispensaries—which have been visibly proliferating in the 
Seattle-area for last couple years—that they have one month to relocate outside 
of school zones. For those dispensaries that fail to move outside a 1,000-foot 
radius of schools, playgrounds, and other school zone areas, federal authorizes 
may raid the properties, seize their assets, and seek federal criminal charges, 
says a letter sent today by DEA agent Matthew Barnes.

Agent Barnes adds that the federal government makes no criminal exceptions for 
marijuana, even it it's "medical," a word that his letter writes in italics and 
quotation marks."

I heard a discussion on npr a few days ago on this topic.  While the quote 
below is true, there is no legal way to purchase it as a citizen without a 
medical marijuana prescription, which raises an interesting dilemna.  The 
Liquor Control Board has the unprecedented job to create an entire regulatory 
framework for retail stores, etc. and they have a year to do it.  The industry 
is expected to bring a lot of revenue to the State as a taxed industry. There 
will also be "DUI" limits.

"Starting tomorrow, people aged 21 and over will be able to legally possess up 
to one ounce of marijuana in Washington State. On Election Day last month, 55 
percent of voters in both Washington State and Colorado voted to make marijuana 
legal, making those states the first two to approve legally regulating 
marijuana like alcohol. The Washington State Liquor Control Board has until 
December of next year to implement rules for the regulated market."





From: John 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 11:24 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] For Emily:  A Question for a Washington State Resident



Are there now legal stores in Seattle where we can buy marijuana?  If yes, does 
the federal government allow it to open?

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

2012-12-07 Thread seventhray1


I'm trying.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
wrote:
>
> Now you're getting into the spirit. Good one!
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"
lurkernomore20002000@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"
> > > lurkernomore20002000@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Share,
> > > >
> > > > Always consider the source. As Ravi has said, much of his
> > > > dysfunctionality is a matter of the public record, except for
those
> > > > posts (a considerable amount) he has managed to have expunged.
> > > >
> > > > He is on the record here, saying that he issued an ultimatum to
his
> > > wife
> > > > that she renounce Amma as her guru and instead accept him as her
> > guru.
> > > >
> > > > So, as I've said, consider the source.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
> > > > chivukula.ravi@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Share - I have to add, your posts to this thread have
hilarious in
> > > > their
> > > > > utter clueless-ness.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are not a person who has, so far shown any awareness,
> > > sensitivity,
> > > > > maturity - intellectual and/or emotional, intelligence to
> > understand
> > > > the
> > > > > nuances of any issue to be really compassionate. There is a
> > > difference
> > > > > between fake niceness and genuine compassion - in the absence
of
> > > above
> > > > your
> > > > > responses to Robin's posts come across as hilarious or
malicious
> > > > depending
> > > > > on my mood.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would say you are very much like Barry except he is overtly
mean
> > > and
> > > > you
> > > > > are not. Anyway I don't know what the sound of two paranoid,
> > > > delusional
> > > > > people conversing is - I don't think it's possible, they are
> > > too..well
> > > > > paranoid and alike to get along with each other. So you are
better
> > > off
> > > > > spending your time on FFL chatting to people like LG, Xeno and
> > > others
> > > > if
> > > > > you don't want people to pile on you.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long
sharelong60@
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they
> > > > > > > would have been under the influence of his self proclaimed
> > > > > > > state of mystical hallucination. Your ignoring, in
relation
> > > > > > > to his intentions, that self proclamation of his
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course, I don't "ignore" it. You say that without having
> > > > > > any idea of how I view this: You just made it up. Typical.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I *disagree* that Robin's intentions would have been
affected,
> > > > > > made somehow negative, by his enlightenment. I see no reason
> > > > > > why that would have been the case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are taking "delusion" and "hallucination" too literally;
> > > > > > those terms are only very roughly approximate, because there
> > > > > > simply is no vocabulary to describe what happened to him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He himself has said his enlightenment was *real*, so there's
> > > > > > obviously a paradoxical element to this that you haven't
> > > > > > bothered to take into account.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > perpetuates
> > > > > > > an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT and is not IMO
> > > > > > > helpful in the present. This is what I am addressing, the
> > > > > > > present.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I know you are. Your sole interest is in finding ways
> > > > > > to portray him negatively *in the present*, and you'll make
> > > > > > up whatever metaphysical "rules" you need to in order to do
> > > > > > that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your "perpetuate an aspect of hallucination into the
> > > > > > PRESENT" doesn't make any sense. *You* don't even know what
> > > > > > you mean by it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have a desperate need to make Robin a Bad Guy to justify
> > > > > > the disgusting way you've behaved toward him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I stand by what I said. The negative intelligences that
> > > > > > brought about Robin's enlightenment *used* his good
> > > > > > intentions--and those of everyone in his group--to further
> > > > > > their own goals. That did not turn them into *bad*
> > > > > > intentions. The bad intentions were those of the negative
> > > > > > intelligences that took advantage of his innocence, his
> > > > > > idealism, his loving nature, his desire to help others
> > > > > > be the best they could possibly be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes
> > > > > > > about all this and will probably do so again, I will
> > > > > > > continue to address issues if I think it is helpful to do
> > > > >

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

Now you're getting into the spirit. Good one!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"
> > lurkernomore20002000@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Share,
> > >
> > > Always consider the source. As Ravi has said, much of his
> > > dysfunctionality is a matter of the public record, except for those
> > > posts (a considerable amount) he has managed to have expunged.
> > >
> > > He is on the record here, saying that he issued an ultimatum to his
> > wife
> > > that she renounce Amma as her guru and instead accept him as her
> guru.
> > >
> > > So, as I've said, consider the source.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
> > > chivukula.ravi@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Share - I have to add, your posts to this thread have hilarious in
> > > their
> > > > utter clueless-ness.
> > > >
> > > > You are not a person who has, so far shown any awareness,
> > sensitivity,
> > > > maturity - intellectual and/or emotional, intelligence to
> understand
> > > the
> > > > nuances of any issue to be really compassionate. There is a
> > difference
> > > > between fake niceness and genuine compassion - in the absence of
> > above
> > > your
> > > > responses to Robin's posts come across as hilarious or malicious
> > > depending
> > > > on my mood.
> > > >
> > > > I would say you are very much like Barry except he is overtly mean
> > and
> > > you
> > > > are not. Anyway I don't know what the sound of two paranoid,
> > > delusional
> > > > people conversing is - I don't think it's possible, they are
> > too..well
> > > > paranoid and alike to get along with each other. So you are better
> > off
> > > > spending your time on FFL chatting to people like LG, Xeno and
> > others
> > > if
> > > > you don't want people to pile on you.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they
> > > > > > would have been under the influence of his self proclaimed
> > > > > > state of mystical hallucination. Your ignoring, in relation
> > > > > > to his intentions, that self proclamation of his
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, I don't "ignore" it. You say that without having
> > > > > any idea of how I view this: You just made it up. Typical.
> > > > >
> > > > > I *disagree* that Robin's intentions would have been affected,
> > > > > made somehow negative, by his enlightenment. I see no reason
> > > > > why that would have been the case.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are taking "delusion" and "hallucination" too literally;
> > > > > those terms are only very roughly approximate, because there
> > > > > simply is no vocabulary to describe what happened to him.
> > > > >
> > > > > He himself has said his enlightenment was *real*, so there's
> > > > > obviously a paradoxical element to this that you haven't
> > > > > bothered to take into account.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > perpetuates
> > > > > > an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT and is not IMO
> > > > > > helpful in the present. This is what I am addressing, the
> > > > > > present.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I know you are. Your sole interest is in finding ways
> > > > > to portray him negatively *in the present*, and you'll make
> > > > > up whatever metaphysical "rules" you need to in order to do
> > > > > that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your "perpetuate an aspect of hallucination into the
> > > > > PRESENT" doesn't make any sense. *You* don't even know what
> > > > > you mean by it.
> > > > >
> > > > > You have a desperate need to make Robin a Bad Guy to justify
> > > > > the disgusting way you've behaved toward him.
> > > > >
> > > > > I stand by what I said. The negative intelligences that
> > > > > brought about Robin's enlightenment *used* his good
> > > > > intentions--and those of everyone in his group--to further
> > > > > their own goals. That did not turn them into *bad*
> > > > > intentions. The bad intentions were those of the negative
> > > > > intelligences that took advantage of his innocence, his
> > > > > idealism, his loving nature, his desire to help others
> > > > > be the best they could possibly be.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes
> > > > > > about all this and will probably do so again, I will
> > > > > > continue to address issues if I think it is helpful to do
> > > > > > so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Robin is a good and honorable man who treated you with
> > > > > fairness, respect, and compassion even after you turned
> > > > > on him.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can do nothing "helpful" where Robin is concerned other
> > > > > than wake up, smell the coffee, and acknowledge how
> > > > > appallingly badly and dishone

[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > I'll have more to say this evening about Barry's
> > hysterical meltdown, but in the meantime, here's a
> > post I made back in 2007 after Barry had brought
> > this up again. The Maya expert in the Salon
> > article I quoted was, um, not exactly the only
> > knowledgeable person to have been upset by the
> > movie:
> 
> Please note that the only hysterical person here is 
> the Judester herself, which she will hopefully 
> demonstrate for us all later tonight. :-)

Well, actually I'll demonstrate how hysterical Barry
was all morning. It was my remark about how nobody
pays attention to him any more except to make fun of
him that triggered his meltdown. Which, as I noted to
laughinggull, gives me lots of chances to make fun of
him, as I anticipated.

> Please also note that she has said NOT A WORD about 
> the real issues at play here. 

I haven't even gotten started, toots.

> That is, it's NOT ABOUT whether the movie was 
> historically inaccurate. No one has suggested 
> that it was.

Au contraire, Pierre.

 Any attempt to get people to focus
> on that is a diversion from the real issues.

Actually, as Barry knows, the "real issues" have
very much to do with the historical inaccuracies
in the movie.

> What those issues are -- the ones that Judy will 
> continue to avoid dealing with -- revolve around:
> 
> 1. Why did she feel competent to comment on a film she 
> had never seen, and obviously has *still* never seen?

Bogus question. Of course there's no reason one shouldn't
comment on the issues surrounding a film when there's
plenty of good reporting on those issues, as there was
with "Apocalypto." 

> 2. Why did she choose to characterize Mel Gibson as a
> "Christian bigot" (again, based on a film she'd never
> seen), when the article she was originally taking as
> gospel did not mention a word about Christianity?

As already noted (and even acknowledged by Barry
himself), Mel Gibson was widely considered to be a
Christian bigot well before the film came out.

The article didn't mention Christianity explicitly,
but it was very distinctly implicit, as I noted at
the time.

> Please note also that not a single one of the "sources"
> she cites below say anything about Christian supremicist 
> themes in the movie, either.

In fact, it's mentioned explicitly in two of the pieces:

> > Yes, Gibson includes the arrival of clearly
> > Christian missionaries (these guys are too clean to be 
> > conquistadors) in the last five minutes of the story (in
> > the real world the Spanish arrived 300 years after the last
> > Maya city was abandoned). It is one of the few calm moments
> > in an otherwise aggressively paced film. The message? The
> > end is near and the savior has come.

And:

> > Ignacio Ochoa's [director of the Nahual Foundation that 
> > promotes Mayan culture] comment that "Gibson replays...
> > an offensive and racist notion that Maya people were
> > brutal to one another long before the arrival of
> > Europeans and thus they deserved, in fact, needed,
> > rescue" articulates what I was feeling, especially
> > towards the end of this film. When the Berkeley crowd
> > started booing at the end of the film as the Spanish-
> > Christian missionaries arrive, I'm sure it was in
> > response to this sense.

How did Barry manage to miss these mentions, I wonder?

I'll just leave this in for readers to contemplate:
 
> JUDY MADE THAT UP.
> ABOUT A MOVIE SHE HAD NEVER SEEN.
> SHE'S STILL SAYING IT, SIX YEARS LATER.
> ABOUT A MOVIE SHE'S *STILL* NEVER SEEN.
> RATHER THAN ADMITTING THIS,
> SHE'S GOING TO DOUBLE DOWN.
> SHE'S A NUTCASE.

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

Salyavin:

Your post becomes the test of my WC1--and I really mean that. Can I respond to 
what you have said sincerely without contacting the existential tensions so 
familiar to my pre-WC1, tensions which would make me (out of a mistaken notion 
of love of truth) say something to challenge you--But when I reread my post 
here to you, all I see is ignorance. And I realize that in some oblique way the 
Personal God was speaking to me via yourself.

So, I am just seeing if reality (in the form of your post) can take me out of 
WC1--and so far I seem to be maintaining that state of consciousness quite 
perfectly. You see what it means, Salyavin: It means letting you exist without 
the benefit of my creatively ignorant prior self. I cannot be your saviour, 
then--but I know now this is good for both of us.

I never was that confident that I would bring about some change in which would 
make you a more beautiful person. But you see, now I realize: It's none of my 
damn business. To be delivered from my role as would-be objectifier of first 
person ontology; you cannot know what a relief it is.

The only downside is that I shall be taking your advice at the end of your 
post: God showed me that no one gave a shit about anything I cared about--and 
in the end I think this may just have spurred (Maharishi word) my entrance into 
WC1.

I can't tell you how wonderful this state of consciousness is--And I believe 
the only way I can prove it to the readers and posters at FFL is 1 Never be 
argumentative 2. Never use irony.

Well, I have just passed my first test, I think.

I will always feel differently about England after this.

Robin

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > Salyavin:
> > 
> > Are you by any chance a clinical psychologist? You conduct psychotherapy? 
> > The only reason i ask is because of the thoughtful and complex reflections 
> > you share with us here on FFL--I am referring especially to your remarks 
> > about people. They are certainly sensitive and wise.
> 
> I told you Robin, I have a gift for summing things up. What you
> don't see are the thoughtful and complex reflections that go into
> my remarks. Or do I just shoot my mouth off when I see another
> tedious attempt to kick start a defunct argument? Which is closer
> to truth, better to think or better just to act? I think that no-one
> really thinks but we just have spontaneous thoughts and then act and attempt 
> to justify them later. Hmmm, I must have thought about that
> at some point.
> 
> 
> > You were dead wrong about AWB--as your subsequently communication with her 
> > proved. (Although you would never acknowledge this.)
> 
> Anne is, like most people on here I should think, most likely a very
> pleasant person when you get to know her. Doesn't mean I'm not too  because 
> I'm an asshole occasionally, or you or anyone.
> 
>  
> > This is classic Salyavin--and it is one of those impulses of yours which 
> > did not travel through the more subtle parts of your brain.
> 
> Yeah, I am a class act
>  
> > I knew you would like that.
> > 
> > Life will never ask you to bear anymore reality than you can, Salyavin.
> 
> And I'm guessing you think that reading and inwardly obsessing
> on every post about Share said this and Robin said that will
> teach me something about reality that I don't already know?
> 
> > But this, this was a beaut.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> 
> No worries mate, normally I wouldn't bother even reading as
> far as I did but you do go on and keep digging up the rubbish
> that - I can promise you - no-one else gives a shit about. But
> you can if that's your bag. 
>  
> 
> 
> > Robin
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

2012-12-07 Thread seventhray1







--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater 
wrote:
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"
> lurkernomore20002000@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Share,
> >
> > Always consider the source. As Ravi has said, much of his
> > dysfunctionality is a matter of the public record, except for those
> > posts (a considerable amount) he has managed to have expunged.
> >
> > He is on the record here, saying that he issued an ultimatum to his
> wife
> > that she renounce Amma as her guru and instead accept him as her
guru.
> >
> > So, as I've said, consider the source.
>
>
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
> > chivukula.ravi@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Share - I have to add, your posts to this thread have hilarious in
> > their
> > > utter clueless-ness.
> > >
> > > You are not a person who has, so far shown any awareness,
> sensitivity,
> > > maturity - intellectual and/or emotional, intelligence to
understand
> > the
> > > nuances of any issue to be really compassionate. There is a
> difference
> > > between fake niceness and genuine compassion - in the absence of
> above
> > your
> > > responses to Robin's posts come across as hilarious or malicious
> > depending
> > > on my mood.
> > >
> > > I would say you are very much like Barry except he is overtly mean
> and
> > you
> > > are not. Anyway I don't know what the sound of two paranoid,
> > delusional
> > > people conversing is - I don't think it's possible, they are
> too..well
> > > paranoid and alike to get along with each other. So you are better
> off
> > > spending your time on FFL chatting to people like LG, Xeno and
> others
> > if
> > > you don't want people to pile on you.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they
> > > > > would have been under the influence of his self proclaimed
> > > > > state of mystical hallucination. Your ignoring, in relation
> > > > > to his intentions, that self proclamation of his
> > > >
> > > > Of course, I don't "ignore" it. You say that without having
> > > > any idea of how I view this: You just made it up. Typical.
> > > >
> > > > I *disagree* that Robin's intentions would have been affected,
> > > > made somehow negative, by his enlightenment. I see no reason
> > > > why that would have been the case.
> > > >
> > > > You are taking "delusion" and "hallucination" too literally;
> > > > those terms are only very roughly approximate, because there
> > > > simply is no vocabulary to describe what happened to him.
> > > >
> > > > He himself has said his enlightenment was *real*, so there's
> > > > obviously a paradoxical element to this that you haven't
> > > > bothered to take into account.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > perpetuates
> > > > > an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT and is not IMO
> > > > > helpful in the present. This is what I am addressing, the
> > > > > present.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I know you are. Your sole interest is in finding ways
> > > > to portray him negatively *in the present*, and you'll make
> > > > up whatever metaphysical "rules" you need to in order to do
> > > > that.
> > > >
> > > > Your "perpetuate an aspect of hallucination into the
> > > > PRESENT" doesn't make any sense. *You* don't even know what
> > > > you mean by it.
> > > >
> > > > You have a desperate need to make Robin a Bad Guy to justify
> > > > the disgusting way you've behaved toward him.
> > > >
> > > > I stand by what I said. The negative intelligences that
> > > > brought about Robin's enlightenment *used* his good
> > > > intentions--and those of everyone in his group--to further
> > > > their own goals. That did not turn them into *bad*
> > > > intentions. The bad intentions were those of the negative
> > > > intelligences that took advantage of his innocence, his
> > > > idealism, his loving nature, his desire to help others
> > > > be the best they could possibly be.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes
> > > > > about all this and will probably do so again, I will
> > > > > continue to address issues if I think it is helpful to do
> > > > > so.
> > > >
> > > > Robin is a good and honorable man who treated you with
> > > > fairness, respect, and compassion even after you turned
> > > > on him.
> > > >
> > > > You can do nothing "helpful" where Robin is concerned other
> > > > than wake up, smell the coffee, and acknowledge how
> > > > appallingly badly and dishonestly you've treated him due
> > > > to your inability to face your own weaknesses. If you are
> > > > incapable of dealing with that reality, just keep your
> > > > poisonous trap shut about him.
> > > >
> > > > You are the most toxic personality I have ever encountered.
> > > > You make my skin crawl.
> > > >
> > > > And I notice you slithered away from responding to my

[FairfieldLife] Re: Will official Gay Marriage relieve Gays from their guilt?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > Why do you suppose young homosexuals commit suicide?
> > > > 
> > > > Well, I am neither young or homosexual nor have I been close to
> > > > committing suicide so it would be very difficult for me to answer
> > > > this question. However, since people in all age groups,
> > > > ethnicities and sexual orientations do occasionally commit
> > > > suicide the question of why some young gay people end their
> > > > lives is probably a good one just as is asking why young 
> > > > aboriginals, young affluent white people or even dentists commit
> > > > suicide. But your question here sort of implies that it more 
> > > > rampant among young gay people to kill themselves than other
> > > > groups and I am not sure that is the case. 
> > > 
> > > "Researchers have found that suicide among lesbian, gay, bisexual, 
> > > transgender (LGBT) youth is comparatively higher than among the general 
> > > population. LGBT teens and young adults have one of the highest rates of 
> > > suicide attempts.[1] According to some groups, this is linked to 
> > > heterocentric cultures and institutionalised homophobia in some cases, 
> > > including the use of LGBT people as a political wedge issue like in the 
> > > contemporary efforts to halt legalising same-sex marriages.[2] Depression 
> > > and drug use among LGBT people have both been shown to increase 
> > > significantly after new laws that discriminate against gay people are 
> > > passed.[3] Bullying of LGBT youth has been shown to be a contributing 
> > > factor in many suicides, even if not all of the attacks have been 
> > > specifically addressing sexuality or gender."
> > > 
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_suicide
> > 
> > My older sister is a so-called lesbian and she ask me what I thought about 
> > it. I told her it didn't matter, but she kept on pestering me about it (I 
> > think she inwardly knew how I felt) so after at least 3 attempts I 
> > responded thinking she really just wanted to know my feelings or beliefs 
> > about it and I said, "I think anyone who engages in it is morally 
> > bankrupt", I haven't heard from her in over 30 years, oh well! :-)
> 
> Oh dear, that is rather heartbreaking. What a thing to never speak again to 
> someone for. Good thing she doesn't see what we all say to each other on FFL. 
> But you have appeared to have stayed consistent in your viewpoint about this 
> for over 30 years. Maybe it is time to change that viewpoint!


Certainly gays and lesbians don't have a corner on lust, for it says in Romans, 
"all have sinned and fallen short of the high calling of God". Straights are as 
big as sinners, there's plenty to go around, isn't that what Christmas is all 
about, "saving us all from satan's power", as it says in the Xmas carol?

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1"
 wrote:
>
>
> Share,
>
> Always consider the source.  As Ravi has said, much of his
> dysfunctionality is a matter of the public record, except for those
> posts (a considerable amount) he has managed to have expunged.
>
> He is on the record here, saying that he issued an ultimatum to his
wife
> that she renounce Amma as her guru and instead accept him as her guru.
>
> So, as I've said, consider the source.


>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
> chivukula.ravi@ wrote:
> >
> > Share - I have to add, your posts to this thread have hilarious in
> their
> > utter clueless-ness.
> >
> > You are not a person who has, so far shown any awareness,
sensitivity,
> > maturity - intellectual and/or emotional, intelligence to understand
> the
> > nuances of any issue to be really compassionate. There is a
difference
> > between fake niceness and genuine compassion - in the absence of
above
> your
> > responses to Robin's posts come across as hilarious or malicious
> depending
> > on my mood.
> >
> > I would say you are very much like Barry except he is overtly mean
and
> you
> > are not. Anyway I don't know what the sound of two paranoid,
> delusional
> > people conversing is - I don't think it's possible, they are
too..well
> > paranoid and alike to get along with each other. So you are better
off
> > spending your time on FFL chatting to people like LG, Xeno and
others
> if
> > you don't want people to pile on you.
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they
> > > > would have been under the influence of his self proclaimed
> > > > state of mystical hallucination. Your ignoring, in relation
> > > > to his intentions, that self proclamation of his
> > >
> > > Of course, I don't "ignore" it. You say that without having
> > > any idea of how I view this: You just made it up. Typical.
> > >
> > > I *disagree* that Robin's intentions would have been affected,
> > > made somehow negative, by his enlightenment. I see no reason
> > > why that would have been the case.
> > >
> > > You are taking "delusion" and "hallucination" too literally;
> > > those terms are only very roughly approximate, because there
> > > simply is no vocabulary to describe what happened to him.
> > >
> > > He himself has said his enlightenment was *real*, so there's
> > > obviously a paradoxical element to this that you haven't
> > > bothered to take into account.
> > >
> > >
> > > > perpetuates
> > > > an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT and is not IMO
> > > > helpful in the present. This is what I am addressing, the
> > > > present.
> > >
> > > Yes, I know you are. Your sole interest is in finding ways
> > > to portray him negatively *in the present*, and you'll make
> > > up whatever metaphysical "rules" you need to in order to do
> > > that.
> > >
> > > Your "perpetuate an aspect of hallucination into the
> > > PRESENT" doesn't make any sense. *You* don't even know what
> > > you mean by it.
> > >
> > > You have a desperate need to make Robin a Bad Guy to justify
> > > the disgusting way you've behaved toward him.
> > >
> > > I stand by what I said. The negative intelligences that
> > > brought about Robin's enlightenment *used* his good
> > > intentions--and those of everyone in his group--to further
> > > their own goals. That did not turn them into *bad*
> > > intentions. The bad intentions were those of the negative
> > > intelligences that took advantage of his innocence, his
> > > idealism, his loving nature, his desire to help others
> > > be the best they could possibly be.
> > >
> > >
> > > Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes
> > > > about all this and will probably do so again, I will
> > > > continue to address issues if I think it is helpful to do
> > > > so.
> > >
> > > Robin is a good and honorable man who treated you with
> > > fairness, respect, and compassion even after you turned
> > > on him.
> > >
> > > You can do nothing "helpful" where Robin is concerned other
> > > than wake up, smell the coffee, and acknowledge how
> > > appallingly badly and dishonestly you've treated him due
> > > to your inability to face your own weaknesses. If you are
> > > incapable of dealing with that reality, just keep your
> > > poisonous trap shut about him.
> > >
> > > You are the most toxic personality I have ever encountered.
> > > You make my skin crawl.
> > >
> > > And I notice you slithered away from responding to my
> > > question:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Yes, the whole situation became confusing, agonizing and
> > > > > eventually poignant. Even more reason to immediately name
> > > > > the hallucination or delusion or pragyaparadh when it
> > > > > appears so that unnecessary suffering can be avoided.
> > > >
> > > > And what is it that will do this "na

[FairfieldLife] Re: Will official Gay Marriage relieve Gays from their guilt?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
> > 
> > > > Why do you suppose young homosexuals commit suicide?
> > > 
> > > Well, I am neither young or homosexual nor have I been close to
> > > committing suicide so it would be very difficult for me to answer
> > > this question. However, since people in all age groups,
> > > ethnicities and sexual orientations do occasionally commit
> > > suicide the question of why some young gay people end their
> > > lives is probably a good one just as is asking why young 
> > > aboriginals, young affluent white people or even dentists commit
> > > suicide. But your question here sort of implies that it more 
> > > rampant among young gay people to kill themselves than other
> > > groups and I am not sure that is the case. 
> > 
> > "Researchers have found that suicide among lesbian, gay, bisexual, 
> > transgender (LGBT) youth is comparatively higher than among the general 
> > population. LGBT teens and young adults have one of the highest rates of 
> > suicide attempts.[1] According to some groups, this is linked to 
> > heterocentric cultures and institutionalised homophobia in some cases, 
> > including the use of LGBT people as a political wedge issue like in the 
> > contemporary efforts to halt legalising same-sex marriages.[2] Depression 
> > and drug use among LGBT people have both been shown to increase 
> > significantly after new laws that discriminate against gay people are 
> > passed.[3] Bullying of LGBT youth has been shown to be a contributing 
> > factor in many suicides, even if not all of the attacks have been 
> > specifically addressing sexuality or gender."
> > 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_suicide
> 
> My older sister is a so-called lesbian and she ask me what I thought about 
> it. I told her it didn't matter, but she kept on pestering me about it (I 
> think she inwardly knew how I felt) so after at least 3 attempts I responded 
> thinking she really just wanted to know my feelings or beliefs about it and I 
> said, "I think anyone who engages in it is morally bankrupt", I haven't heard 
> from her in over 30 years, oh well! :-)

Oh dear, that is rather heartbreaking. What a thing to never speak again to 
someone for. Good thing she doesn't see what we all say to each other on FFL. 
But you have appeared to have stayed consistent in your viewpoint about this 
for over 30 years. Maybe it is time to change that viewpoint!
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: our place in the Universe to LaughingG



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> LOL and of course I have no idea what happened.Â  Here try this instead, 
> beautiful music, southern Vancouver Island, another place in the Universe (-:
> 
> 
> 
> http://vimeo.com/53986934

Ahhh, this is my island, my part of the world. You can see my 'farm' at 3mins 
22seconds. The airport runways are visible at Vic airport and my 5 acres is in 
the cluster of trees near the water just to the right of the screen, north of 
the airport (the camera is looking south toward the City of Victoria). Cool. I 
wish I could freeze the picture and circle it!

> 
> 
> 
>  From: laughinggull108 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 5:29 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: our place in the Universe
>  
> 
> Â  
> OMG...the universe is so full of stars that it appears as solid white in this 
> picture...no dark regions at all that I can detect. However, I do detect some 
> larger red regions accompanied by clusters of smaller brown regionsÂ that 
> appear in the shape of letters of our alphabet. Amazing!
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Â  
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>ANTARES IS THE 15TH BRIGHTEST STAR IN THE SKY.Â 
> > >>IT IS MORE THAN 1000 LIGHT YEARS AWAY. 
> > >>
> > >>-- .. 
> > >>
> > >>THIS IS A HUBBLE TELESCOPE ULTRA DEEP FIELD INFRARED VIEW OF COUNTLESS 
> > >>'ENTIRE' GALAXIES BILLIONS OF LIGHT-YEARS AWAY.Â 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>BELOW IS A CLOSE UP OF ONE OF THE DARKEST REGIONS OF THE PHOTO ABOVEÂ 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>. 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: More Opera 12.04.12 to feste and emptyB



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> Barry is being compelled by some strange self-
> destructive impulse to behave like a brainless
> buffoon.

Barry is compelled by his frustration with you, your mind, the very person you 
are Judy. You drive him crazy. He just can't help himself. He HAS to read your 
posts, he HAS to stand ready to jump in when he feels there is an opening to 
undermine, call you out, find the achilles heel where there may or may not be 
one. He seems, frankly, obsessed with you but there is even more than that. He 
seems to relish the prospect of cutting the legs out from under those who are 
smarter, have a bigger vision or are just plain nicer than he is. In some 
strange way you are his muse, or at least his motivation to get out of bed in 
the morning. He has a lot to thank you for.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > Just for fun, given Judy's claim of being offended by
> > anything less than total historical accuracy...  :-)
> 
> I never made any such claim.
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > And with regard to the "Mad Scene" woman emptybill was talking
> > > about, she murders her bridegroom because she's been forced by
> > > her brother to marry him rather than the man she loves, and
> > > she has gone insane with grief.
> > >
> > > Real tricky on the woman's part, huh?
> > >
> > > There's more: Her brother has arranged the marriage for
> > > political reasons, to secure his own power; and the two
> > > thwarted lovers have been led to believe each has betrayed the
> > > other. When the woman's lover learns that she has died, he
> > > kills himself.
> > >
> > > The opera is based on real events that took place in 17th
> > > century Scotland.
> > 
> > First, this is inaccurate. The opera is based on Sir Walter
> > Scott's novel "The Bride of Lammermoor." Scott at one
> > point *claimed* that it was based on historical fact, but
> > that seems not to have been true. From Wikipedia:
> 
> Actually, if you check out Wikipedia on "The Bride of
> Lammermoor," you'll find that the novel, albeit
> fictional, is closely modeled on the historical events.
> The only area of real uncertainty historically is
> exactly what happened in the bridal chamber on the
> couple's wedding night:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bride_of_Lammermoor
> 
> Barry didn't give a link for what he quoted. That's
> because he had to go rather far afield to find anything
> on Wikipedia that called in question any of the historical
> basis for the opera:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscount_Stair
> 
> 
> > Second, now that Judy's description of the opera as
> > being based on "real events" has been shown to be...
> > uh...less than factual,
> 
> The opera "Lucia di Lammermoor" certainly takes some
> liberties with the plot of the novel, but given that
> the novel is fairly accurate historically, it's entirely
> reasonable to say the opera is based on real events.
> ("Based on" does not imply 100 percent historical
> accuracy, but Barry knew that.)
> 
> The point in context, of course, is the subjugation and
> oppression of women, specifically here with regard to
> arranged marriages.
> 
> > can we expect her anytime soon
> > to rag on it? That's what she did for the movie she never
> > bothered to see when she found out that it was less than
> > 100% historically accurate, after all.  :-)
> > 
> > Will she post a nasty putdown of the opera, claiming
> > that either Sir Walter Scott or Gaetano Donizetti were
> > "Christian bigots" trying to misrepresent true history?
> 
> Christianity came into this where, exactly?
> 
> (Anybody who doesn't understand why Barry's contorted
> effort here is laughable--even if he were correct about
> the historical issues, which he isn't--let me know, and
> I'll be happy to explain.)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Will official Gay Marriage relieve Gays from their guilt?

2012-12-07 Thread Buck

So, what does this have to do with Meditating and Fairfield?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
>
> Now that they're married will they feel free of guilt and shame that 
> 'society' (ostensibly) has put on them?
> 
> Is one of the reasons they want gay marriage to assuage their guilt over 
> their 'unusual' sexual behavior? thinking that by society condoning it they 
> would feel relieved?
> 
> Or, do any of them actually have any guilt at all, and if so, is it for real 
> (i.e. from their God given conscience) or just social/religious programing?
> 
> And if it's from their conscience could that mean that actually homosexuality 
> is indeed wrong? At least for them? and maybe a clarion call for the rest of 
> us? Could homosexuality actually be wrong and immoral?
> 
> Enquiring minds want to know. :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

"Grover Smith's more liberal translation of the Heraclitian fragment-'Although 
there is but one Center, most men live in centers of their own' (251) is among 
the better interpretations. Heraclitus says there is only one logos or center 
of intelligence--analogous to the foundational field of existence Maharishi 
calls pure consciousness or pure intelligence--but people mistakenly see only 
their own, individual centers. This misunderstanding of the part for the whole 
is what Vedic Science calls pragya-aparadh--the mistake of the intellect--the 
mistake of believing that an individual consciousness imbedded in time, rather 
than an eternal, unified consciousness, is the true nature of existence. 
Reading the line in this broader sense, that there is a primal state common to 
everyone, suggests that the relationship between logos and individual wisdom is 
not adversarial, as Reibetanz has suggested; it is simply that the 
interconnectedness of such a relationship has been lost."

My dear friend Share,

I suppose my irony would somehow create some confusion if I ever said something 
extreme (when I was being truthful), since many persons can't discriminate 
between the metaphysics of sincerity versus the metaphysics of irony. But I 
wish to tell you that soon after reading this post of yours, I meditated on 
what I should do to come up with a response to your quite formidable challenge 
to me--in the form of your post.

You will not guess what happened. This is not ironic. I actually went into 
another state of consciousness--and guess what? that state of consciousness was 
the absolute reverse of Unity Consciousness--and therefore represents a form of 
prgaya-aparadh *which actually is the truth*. Share, I suddenly found myself 
enclosed within my own individuality in such a pure way that I realized that 
all the meaning and purpose of my life would have to come from my own 
person--and from nothing which was external to me, which includes the entire 
universe (and of course the Self). The self supplanted the Self. In the same 
way that one becomes enlightened--only, as it were, a kind of physics of 
reversal (to Unity Consciousness).

This is the first state of awakening, but it already seems I can name this 
state of consciousness. It is *Western Consciousness One*--I am leaving open 
the possibility that what I have entered is the equivalent of the realization 
of the anti-pragya-aparadh state of Cosmic Consciousness--only, as you would 
guess, it is the obverse of oneness: the experience is that there is a form of 
individuality that is the cosmic actualization of who you are (even if some of 
your frailties are still there--as mine certainly are). There is the 
possibility I am guessing of two more state of Western Consciousness, and these 
of course would be the equivalent of God Consciousness and then Unity 
Consciousness (WC2&3).

There will be persons reading this who will not believe me. But no matter: I 
have, since reading your post, Share, entered into another state of 
consciousness, and it has the fascinating effect of allowing me to extricate 
myself from my entanglement with you--and, although from very different 
motives, acting on the counsel of Salyavin (Who turns out to be wiser than I 
thought--he may have even been the first impetus to this change in my 
consciousness--my personal consciousness, that is. But you were the decisive 
and proximate cause. And I am very grateful to you for this, Share. Even as I 
know there are persons now thinking I am just being Robin-ironic.).

I am definitely in another state of consciousness, and the effect of this WC1, 
Share, is to realize that I need not pursue doggedly and fanatically every 
single nuance of meaning and truth in my experience of existing as a person 
inside the universe. And the first issue to drop away to give me evidence of 
this change in me comes in the form of the spontaneous realization that we can 
just be friends--no offline correspondence or anything like that. But we can 
just be reconciled inside the context of FFL--and I thank the Western gods for 
this (whoever they may be--I think I have a pretty good idea, but stuff like 
that is secret of course--as you can understand).

But it is a great day for me, Share. I am now in a pure state of 
individuation--which would mean that criticizing anyone---much less 
'confronting' someone--is antithetical to the tendencies set up by WC1. You get 
your ego to keep forever, but it means mechanically detaching yourself from the 
drama of creation in some significant, even categorical sense. I feel this, and 
it is a wonder to me, given that until I went into this different state of 
consciousness I was sucking out the marrow of existential meaning and purpose 
in every second of my life. And arguing out the truth with everyone.

This was a form of ignorance. Now I exist (as it were) as if inside my own 
universe--and it seems complete, even though I do not feel invincible or 
any

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

2012-12-07 Thread seventhray1


Share,

Always consider the source.  As Ravi has said, much of his
dysfunctionality is a matter of the public record, except for those
posts (a considerable amount) he has managed to have expunged.

He is on the record here, saying that he issued an ultimatum to his wife
that she renounce Amma as her guru and instead accept him as her guru.

So, as I've said, consider the source.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
> Share - I have to add, your posts to this thread have hilarious in
their
> utter clueless-ness.
>
> You are not a person who has, so far shown any awareness, sensitivity,
> maturity - intellectual and/or emotional, intelligence to understand
the
> nuances of any issue to be really compassionate. There is a difference
> between fake niceness and genuine compassion - in the absence of above
your
> responses to Robin's posts come across as hilarious or malicious
depending
> on my mood.
>
> I would say you are very much like Barry except he is overtly mean and
you
> are not. Anyway I don't know what the sound of two paranoid,
delusional
> people conversing is - I don't think it's possible, they are too..well
> paranoid and alike to get along with each other. So you are better off
> spending your time on FFL chatting to people like LG, Xeno and others
if
> you don't want people to pile on you.
>
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM, authfriend authfriend@... wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they
> > > would have been under the influence of his self proclaimed
> > > state of mystical hallucination. Your ignoring, in relation
> > > to his intentions, that self proclamation of his
> >
> > Of course, I don't "ignore" it. You say that without having
> > any idea of how I view this: You just made it up. Typical.
> >
> > I *disagree* that Robin's intentions would have been affected,
> > made somehow negative, by his enlightenment. I see no reason
> > why that would have been the case.
> >
> > You are taking "delusion" and "hallucination" too literally;
> > those terms are only very roughly approximate, because there
> > simply is no vocabulary to describe what happened to him.
> >
> > He himself has said his enlightenment was *real*, so there's
> > obviously a paradoxical element to this that you haven't
> > bothered to take into account.
> >
> >
> > > perpetuates
> > > an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT and is not IMO
> > > helpful in the present. This is what I am addressing, the
> > > present.
> >
> > Yes, I know you are. Your sole interest is in finding ways
> > to portray him negatively *in the present*, and you'll make
> > up whatever metaphysical "rules" you need to in order to do
> > that.
> >
> > Your "perpetuate an aspect of hallucination into the
> > PRESENT" doesn't make any sense. *You* don't even know what
> > you mean by it.
> >
> > You have a desperate need to make Robin a Bad Guy to justify
> > the disgusting way you've behaved toward him.
> >
> > I stand by what I said. The negative intelligences that
> > brought about Robin's enlightenment *used* his good
> > intentions--and those of everyone in his group--to further
> > their own goals. That did not turn them into *bad*
> > intentions. The bad intentions were those of the negative
> > intelligences that took advantage of his innocence, his
> > idealism, his loving nature, his desire to help others
> > be the best they could possibly be.
> >
> >
> > Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes
> > > about all this and will probably do so again, I will
> > > continue to address issues if I think it is helpful to do
> > > so.
> >
> > Robin is a good and honorable man who treated you with
> > fairness, respect, and compassion even after you turned
> > on him.
> >
> > You can do nothing "helpful" where Robin is concerned other
> > than wake up, smell the coffee, and acknowledge how
> > appallingly badly and dishonestly you've treated him due
> > to your inability to face your own weaknesses. If you are
> > incapable of dealing with that reality, just keep your
> > poisonous trap shut about him.
> >
> > You are the most toxic personality I have ever encountered.
> > You make my skin crawl.
> >
> > And I notice you slithered away from responding to my
> > question:
> >
> >
> > > > Yes, the whole situation became confusing, agonizing and
> > > > eventually poignant. Even more reason to immediately name
> > > > the hallucination or delusion or pragyaparadh when it
> > > > appears so that unnecessary suffering can be avoided.
> > >
> > > And what is it that will do this "naming" for us, Share?
> >
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Will official Gay Marriage relieve Gays from their guilt?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:35 PM, wgm4u  wrote:
> 
> > My older sister is a so-called lesbian and she ask me what I thought about
> > it. I told her it didn't matter, but she kept on pestering me about it (I
> > think she inwardly knew how I felt) so after at least 3 attempts I
> > responded thinking she really just wanted to know my feelings or beliefs
> > about it and I said, "I think anyone who engages in it is morally
> > bankrupt", I haven't heard from her in over 30 years, oh well! :-)
> 
> 
> You sick son of a bitch.

Nyuk; well, so much for having an opinion right? I should have just said "Oh, I 
think it's wonderful, in fact it kind of turns me on". :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Will official Gay Marriage relieve Gays from their guilt?

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:35 PM, wgm4u  wrote:

> My older sister is a so-called lesbian and she ask me what I thought about
> it. I told her it didn't matter, but she kept on pestering me about it (I
> think she inwardly knew how I felt) so after at least 3 attempts I
> responded thinking she really just wanted to know my feelings or beliefs
> about it and I said, "I think anyone who engages in it is morally
> bankrupt", I haven't heard from her in over 30 years, oh well! :-)


You sick son of a bitch.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Will official Gay Marriage relieve Gays from their guilt?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
> 
> > > Why do you suppose young homosexuals commit suicide?
> > 
> > Well, I am neither young or homosexual nor have I been close to
> > committing suicide so it would be very difficult for me to answer
> > this question. However, since people in all age groups,
> > ethnicities and sexual orientations do occasionally commit
> > suicide the question of why some young gay people end their
> > lives is probably a good one just as is asking why young 
> > aboriginals, young affluent white people or even dentists commit
> > suicide. But your question here sort of implies that it more 
> > rampant among young gay people to kill themselves than other
> > groups and I am not sure that is the case. 
> 
> "Researchers have found that suicide among lesbian, gay, bisexual, 
> transgender (LGBT) youth is comparatively higher than among the general 
> population. LGBT teens and young adults have one of the highest rates of 
> suicide attempts.[1] According to some groups, this is linked to 
> heterocentric cultures and institutionalised homophobia in some cases, 
> including the use of LGBT people as a political wedge issue like in the 
> contemporary efforts to halt legalising same-sex marriages.[2] Depression and 
> drug use among LGBT people have both been shown to increase significantly 
> after new laws that discriminate against gay people are passed.[3] Bullying 
> of LGBT youth has been shown to be a contributing factor in many suicides, 
> even if not all of the attacks have been specifically addressing sexuality or 
> gender."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_suicide

My older sister is a so-called lesbian and she ask me what I thought about it. 
I told her it didn't matter, but she kept on pestering me about it (I think she 
inwardly knew how I felt) so after at least 3 attempts I responded thinking she 
really just wanted to know my feelings or beliefs about it and I said, "I think 
anyone who engages in it is morally bankrupt", I haven't heard from her in over 
30 years, oh well! :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: our place in the Universe to LaughingG

LOL and of course I have no idea what happened.  Here try this instead, 
beautiful music, southern Vancouver Island, another place in the Universe (-:

http://vimeo.com/53986934

 From: laughinggull108 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 5:29 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: our place in the Universe

OMG...the universe is so full of stars that it appears as solid white in this 
picture...no dark regions at all that I can detect. However, I do detect some 
larger red regions accompanied by clusters of smaller brown regions that appear 
in the shape of letters of our alphabet. Amazing!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>ANTARES IS THE 15TH BRIGHTEST STAR IN THE SKY. 
> >>IT IS MORE THAN 1000 LIGHT YEARS AWAY. 
> >>
> >>-- .. 
> >>
> >>THIS IS A HUBBLE TELESCOPE ULTRA DEEP FIELD INFRARED VIEW OF COUNTLESS 
> >>'ENTIRE' GALAXIES BILLIONS OF LIGHT-YEARS AWAY. 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>BELOW IS A CLOSE UP OF ONE OF THE DARKEST REGIONS OF THE PHOTO ABOVE 
> >>
> >>
> >>. 
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Will official Gay Marriage relieve Gays from their guilt?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:

> > Why do you suppose young homosexuals commit suicide?
> 
> Well, I am neither young or homosexual nor have I been close to
> committing suicide so it would be very difficult for me to answer
> this question. However, since people in all age groups,
> ethnicities and sexual orientations do occasionally commit
> suicide the question of why some young gay people end their
> lives is probably a good one just as is asking why young 
> aboriginals, young affluent white people or even dentists commit
> suicide. But your question here sort of implies that it more 
> rampant among young gay people to kill themselves than other
> groups and I am not sure that is the case. 

"Researchers have found that suicide among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender 
(LGBT) youth is comparatively higher than among the general population. LGBT 
teens and young adults have one of the highest rates of suicide attempts.[1] 
According to some groups, this is linked to heterocentric cultures and 
institutionalised homophobia in some cases, including the use of LGBT people as 
a political wedge issue like in the contemporary efforts to halt legalising 
same-sex marriages.[2] Depression and drug use among LGBT people have both been 
shown to increase significantly after new laws that discriminate against gay 
people are passed.[3] Bullying of LGBT youth has been shown to be a 
contributing factor in many suicides, even if not all of the attacks have been 
specifically addressing sexuality or gender."

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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Will official Gay Marriage relieve Gays from their guilt?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Now that they're married will they feel free of guilt and shame that 
> > > > 'society' (ostensibly) has put on them?
> > > 
> > > Not sure anyone is feeling the 'shame' and 'guilt' either before marriage 
> > > or after.
> > > > 
> > > > Is one of the reasons they want gay marriage to assuage their guilt 
> > > > over their 'unusual' sexual behavior? thinking that by society 
> > > > condoning it they would feel relieved?
> > > 
> > > I seriously doubt it.
> > > > 
> > > > Or, do any of them actually have any guilt at all, and if so, is it for 
> > > > real (i.e. from their God given conscience) or just social/religious 
> > > > programing?
> > > 
> > > I love how you keep using the word "they" and "them" like homosexuals are 
> > > some sort of specimen in a petri dish.
> > > > 
> > > > And if it's from their conscience could that mean that actually 
> > > > homosexuality is indeed wrong? At least for them? and maybe a clarion 
> > > > call for the rest of us? Could homosexuality actually be wrong and 
> > > > immoral?
> > > > 
> > > > Enquiring minds want to know. :-)
> > > 
> > > It would be nice to think you actually are inquiring and didn't already 
> > > have your mind made up on all of this. However, I get the distinct 
> > > impression you won't be taking that walk down the aisle with your 
> > > same-sex partner anytime soon.
> > 
> > Why do you suppose young homosexuals commit suicide?
> 
> Well, I am neither young or homosexual nor have I been close to committing 
> suicide so it would be very difficult for me to answer this question. 
> However, since people in all age groups, ethnicities and sexual orientations 
> do occasionally commit suicide the question of why some young gay people end 
> their lives is probably a good one just as is asking why young aboriginals, 
> young affluent white people or even dentists commit suicide. But your 
> question here sort of implies that it more rampant among young gay people to 
> kill themselves than other groups and I am not sure that is the case. 
> 
>  >Hasn't the Gay lobby suggested it's because of social programming and 
> society needs to be re-educated, starting in the schools? I know in some 
> cases it is explained because of bullying, but not all.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
>  >And not all gays want to be married anyway.
> 
> That is true enough. So where are we going with this?

Nothing important really, I just have a theory that since LGBT's think they 
can't(or won't) change themselves to conform to society they want to change 
society to conform to them...that's all.

I think they've pretty much thrown scripture out the window, though one's 
conscience is another matter, that's a real sticky wicket, we all know we get 
pestered by our conscience now and then, best to do it's bidding I suppose.

I think what gays are actually battling is their own consciences, FWIW. They 
don't have *gay scripture* now do they. What they need is a GAY Prophet, or a 
Gay Jesus if you will. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Will official Gay Marriage relieve Gays from their guilt?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
> > >
> > > Now that they're married will they feel free of guilt and shame that 
> > > 'society' (ostensibly) has put on them?
> > 
> > Not sure anyone is feeling the 'shame' and 'guilt' either before marriage 
> > or after.
> > > 
> > > Is one of the reasons they want gay marriage to assuage their guilt over 
> > > their 'unusual' sexual behavior? thinking that by society condoning it 
> > > they would feel relieved?
> > 
> > I seriously doubt it.
> > > 
> > > Or, do any of them actually have any guilt at all, and if so, is it for 
> > > real (i.e. from their God given conscience) or just social/religious 
> > > programing?
> > 
> > I love how you keep using the word "they" and "them" like homosexuals are 
> > some sort of specimen in a petri dish.
> > > 
> > > And if it's from their conscience could that mean that actually 
> > > homosexuality is indeed wrong? At least for them? and maybe a clarion 
> > > call for the rest of us? Could homosexuality actually be wrong and 
> > > immoral?
> > > 
> > > Enquiring minds want to know. :-)
> > 
> > It would be nice to think you actually are inquiring and didn't already 
> > have your mind made up on all of this. However, I get the distinct 
> > impression you won't be taking that walk down the aisle with your same-sex 
> > partner anytime soon.
> 
> Why do you suppose young homosexuals commit suicide?

Well, I am neither young or homosexual nor have I been close to committing 
suicide so it would be very difficult for me to answer this question. However, 
since people in all age groups, ethnicities and sexual orientations do 
occasionally commit suicide the question of why some young gay people end their 
lives is probably a good one just as is asking why young aboriginals, young 
affluent white people or even dentists commit suicide. But your question here 
sort of implies that it more rampant among young gay people to kill themselves 
than other groups and I am not sure that is the case. 

 >Hasn't the Gay lobby suggested it's because of social programming and society 
 >needs to be re-educated, starting in the schools? I know in some cases it is 
 >explained because of bullying, but not all.

What do you think?

 >And not all gays want to be married anyway.

That is true enough. So where are we going with this?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More Opera 12.04.12

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:21 AM, emptybill  wrote:

> Raving Yogi
>
> Why bother indeed! You're such a drama queen.
>
> You are already Lucia - only without the knife.
>
> Just remember ...  no matter how much you claim to love your Diva (cognate
> with deva) she'll fry you with onions for  sheer entertainment if you
> become too much of a lunatickle.
>

Devi loves being lunatickled empty baby and no one can lunatickle her like
me. I'm her real source of entertainment.


>
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> wrote:
> >
> > "Anyone actually watch it?"
> >
> > Stop begging empty baby - this habit of yours is highly irritating - OK?
> I
> > am not going to watch it.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 9:46 PM, emptybill emptybill@... wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Wonderful performances everyone.
> > >
> > > What brilliant addendums to the vocal
> > > ornamentations of Donizetti's Lucia.
> > >
> > > You all are of the highest literary amplitude
> > > by recreating the mad scene right here on FFL.
> > >
> > > And by the way. Remember that video the Judy
> > > was praising?
> > >
>

[FairfieldLife] 38

2012-12-07 Thread mjackson74

As I took my constitutional today, it occurred to me that it is December 7th - 
which means that 38 years ago today Jamie Vollmer who I believe lives in 
Fairfield whispered my very first TM mantra in my ears. 38 years - my how time 
flies.

[FairfieldLife] Re: More Opera 12.04.12 to feste and emptyB

Barry is being compelled by some strange self-
destructive impulse to behave like a brainless
buffoon.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Just for fun, given Judy's claim of being offended by
> anything less than total historical accuracy...  :-)

I never made any such claim.

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> >
> > And with regard to the "Mad Scene" woman emptybill was talking
> > about, she murders her bridegroom because she's been forced by
> > her brother to marry him rather than the man she loves, and
> > she has gone insane with grief.
> >
> > Real tricky on the woman's part, huh?
> >
> > There's more: Her brother has arranged the marriage for
> > political reasons, to secure his own power; and the two
> > thwarted lovers have been led to believe each has betrayed the
> > other. When the woman's lover learns that she has died, he
> > kills himself.
> >
> > The opera is based on real events that took place in 17th
> > century Scotland.
> 
> First, this is inaccurate. The opera is based on Sir Walter
> Scott's novel "The Bride of Lammermoor." Scott at one
> point *claimed* that it was based on historical fact, but
> that seems not to have been true. From Wikipedia:

Actually, if you check out Wikipedia on "The Bride of
Lammermoor," you'll find that the novel, albeit
fictional, is closely modeled on the historical events.
The only area of real uncertainty historically is
exactly what happened in the bridal chamber on the
couple's wedding night:

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

Barry didn't give a link for what he quoted. That's
because he had to go rather far afield to find anything
on Wikipedia that called in question any of the historical
basis for the opera:

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

> Second, now that Judy's description of the opera as
> being based on "real events" has been shown to be...
> uh...less than factual,

The opera "Lucia di Lammermoor" certainly takes some
liberties with the plot of the novel, but given that
the novel is fairly accurate historically, it's entirely
reasonable to say the opera is based on real events.
("Based on" does not imply 100 percent historical
accuracy, but Barry knew that.)

The point in context, of course, is the subjugation and
oppression of women, specifically here with regard to
arranged marriages.

> can we expect her anytime soon
> to rag on it? That's what she did for the movie she never
> bothered to see when she found out that it was less than
> 100% historically accurate, after all.  :-)
> 
> Will she post a nasty putdown of the opera, claiming
> that either Sir Walter Scott or Gaetano Donizetti were
> "Christian bigots" trying to misrepresent true history?

Christianity came into this where, exactly?

(Anybody who doesn't understand why Barry's contorted
effort here is laughable--even if he were correct about
the historical issues, which he isn't--let me know, and
I'll be happy to explain.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote: 
> 
> > I'll have more to say this evening about Barry's hysterical 
> > meltdown, but in the meantime, here's a post I made back in
> > 2007 after Barry had brought this up again. The Maya expert
> > in the Salon article I quoted was, um, not exactly the only 
> > knowledgeable person to have been upset by the movie:
> 
> > A few selections from articles discussing the historical
> > inaccuracies in "Apocalypto"...
> 
> Barry is just doing what he always does, so why is this
> an 'hysterical meltdown'?

Well, you'd have to read his posts in this thread to
know why I called it that.

(I don't *think* Xeno meant to suggest that Barry is
always engaged in hysterical meltdowns; I think he just
miswrote.)

> As for Apocalypto, a rather brutal film, it's fiction.

Yes. Once you've read the published commentary I quoted,
we can discuss why the historical inaccuracies are
so significant.


> Now to this I can layer on additional interpretations from my
> own mind, based on rather poor memories of reading history
> books and from school. I can then project that the Mayan 
> civilisation will fall, that the Spaniards are bringing the
> true Catholic faith to these poor savages

Actually it had already fallen well before the Spanish
arrived. As to whether the Mayans were actually "poor
savages," well, that's part of the issue with the film.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > > Anyway, the bottom line is that hardly anybody pays 
> > > > > > much attention to Barry these days except to make
> > > > > > fun of him.
> > 
> > But Judy, isn't it nice that the Turqo now has a new fan
> > here ? Since Curtis and Vaj are not posting here these
> > days nobody cares about his slanders, lies, unstressing
> > and self-promotion anymore. Must be a relief that a new
> > wacko finally arrives who admires him :-)
> >

> Nablusosss, what you have just tried to do here is to get 
> something negative started here on FFL, and that must come
> from a dark place still inside of you...very dark indeed.
> I don't respect that. And it will be very telling from the 
> responses, if any, that you get.

Uh...what?? *Nabby* has tried to get something negative
started??

Did you not bother to read the posts of Barry's that
Nabby was commenting on? Or are you really that much of
a hypocrite?

(BTW, the reason for those foaming-at-the-mouth tirades
is that Barry got his biggest buttons royally pressed 
when I said nobody much pays attention to him any more
except to make fun of him. By God, he's going to MAKE
FFL pay attention to him, even if he has to scream and
jump up and down and stand on his head and lie until
he's blue in the face. I knew that's how he'd react,
and I also knew it would give me all *kinds* of
opportunities to make fun of him, as  you'll see. Barry
is nothing if not predictable.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:47 PM, salyavin808 wrote:
 
> > I told you Robin, I have a gift for summing things up. What you
> > don't see are the thoughtful and complex reflections that go into
> > my remarks. Or do I just shoot my mouth off when I see another
> > tedious attempt to kick start a defunct argument? Which is closer
> > to truth, better to think or better just to act? I think that no-
> > one really thinks but we just have spontaneous thoughts and then 
> > act and attempt to justify them later. Hmmm, I must have thought 
> > about that at some point.
> 
> Wow, your brain must have been on fire after this paragraph -
> intense stuff Salivating puppy, better go get a CAT scan just
> to be safe.

LOL.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:47 PM, salyavin808 wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Salyavin:
> >
> > Are you by any chance a clinical psychologist? You conduct
> psychotherapy? The only reason i ask is because of the thoughtful and
> complex reflections you share with us here on FFL--I am referring
> especially to your remarks about people. They are certainly sensitive and
> wise.
>
> I told you Robin, I have a gift for summing things up. What you
> don't see are the thoughtful and complex reflections that go into
> my remarks. Or do I just shoot my mouth off when I see another
> tedious attempt to kick start a defunct argument? Which is closer
> to truth, better to think or better just to act? I think that no-one
> really thinks but we just have spontaneous thoughts and then act and
> attempt to justify them later. Hmmm, I must have thought about that
> at some point.


Wow, your brain must have been on fire after this paragraph - intense stuff
Salivating puppy, better go get a CAT scan just to be safe.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

Share - I have to add, your posts to this thread have hilarious in their
utter clueless-ness.

You are not a person who has, so far shown any awareness, sensitivity,
 maturity - intellectual and/or emotional, intelligence to understand the
nuances of any issue to be really compassionate. There is a difference
between fake niceness and genuine compassion - in the absence of above your
responses to Robin's posts come across as hilarious or malicious depending
on my mood.

I would say you are very much like Barry except he is overtly mean and you
are not. Anyway I don't know what the sound of two paranoid, delusional
people conversing is - I don't think it's possible, they are too..well
paranoid and alike to get along with each other. So you are better off
spending your time on FFL chatting to people like LG, Xeno and others if
you don't want people to pile on you.

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM, authfriend  wrote:

> **
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they
> > would have been under the influence of his self proclaimed
> > state of mystical hallucination. Your ignoring, in relation
> > to his intentions, that self proclamation of his
>
> Of course, I don't "ignore" it. You say that without having
> any idea of how I view this: You just made it up. Typical.
>
> I *disagree* that Robin's intentions would have been affected,
> made somehow negative, by his enlightenment. I see no reason
> why that would have been the case.
>
> You are taking "delusion" and "hallucination" too literally;
> those terms are only very roughly approximate, because there
> simply is no vocabulary to describe what happened to him.
>
> He himself has said his enlightenment was *real*, so there's
> obviously a paradoxical element to this that you haven't
> bothered to take into account.
>
>
> > perpetuates
> > an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT and is not IMO
> > helpful in the present. This is what I am addressing, the
> > present.
>
> Yes, I know you are. Your sole interest is in finding ways
> to portray him negatively *in the present*, and you'll make
> up whatever metaphysical "rules" you need to in order to do
> that.
>
> Your "perpetuate an aspect of hallucination into the
> PRESENT" doesn't make any sense. *You* don't even know what
> you mean by it.
>
> You have a desperate need to make Robin a Bad Guy to justify
> the disgusting way you've behaved toward him.
>
> I stand by what I said. The negative intelligences that
> brought about Robin's enlightenment *used* his good
> intentions--and those of everyone in his group--to further
> their own goals. That did not turn them into *bad*
> intentions. The bad intentions were those of the negative
> intelligences that took advantage of his innocence, his
> idealism, his loving nature, his desire to help others
> be the best they could possibly be.
>
>
> Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes
> > about all this and will probably do so again, I will
> > continue to address issues if I think it is helpful to do
> > so.
>
> Robin is a good and honorable man who treated you with
> fairness, respect, and compassion even after you turned
> on him.
>
> You can do nothing "helpful" where Robin is concerned other
> than wake up, smell the coffee, and acknowledge how
> appallingly badly and dishonestly you've treated him due
> to your inability to face your own weaknesses. If you are
> incapable of dealing with that reality, just keep your
> poisonous trap shut about him.
>
> You are the most toxic personality I have ever encountered.
> You make my skin crawl.
>
> And I notice you slithered away from responding to my
> question:
>
>
> > > Yes, the whole situation became confusing, agonizing and
> > > eventually poignant. Even more reason to immediately name
> > > the hallucination or delusion or pragyaparadh when it
> > > appears so that unnecessary suffering can be avoided.
> >
> > And what is it that will do this "naming" for us, Share?
>
>  
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they
> would have been under the influence of his self proclaimed
> state of mystical hallucination. Your ignoring, in relation
> to his intentions, that self proclamation of his

Of course, I don't "ignore" it. You say that without having
any idea of how I view this: You just made it up. Typical.

I *disagree* that Robin's intentions would have been affected,
made somehow negative, by his enlightenment. I see no reason
why that would have been the case.

You are taking "delusion" and "hallucination" too literally;
those terms are only very roughly approximate, because there
simply is no vocabulary to describe what happened to him.

He himself has said his enlightenment was *real*, so there's
obviously a paradoxical element to this that you haven't
bothered to take into account.

> perpetuates
> an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT and is not IMO 
> helpful in the present. This is what I am addressing, the 
> present.

Yes, I know you are. Your sole interest is in finding ways
to portray him negatively *in the present*, and you'll make
up whatever metaphysical "rules" you need to in order to do
that.

Your "perpetuate an aspect of hallucination into the
PRESENT" doesn't make any sense. *You* don't even know what
you mean by it.

You have a desperate need to make Robin a Bad Guy to justify
the disgusting way you've behaved toward him.

I stand by what I said. The negative intelligences that
brought about Robin's enlightenment *used* his good
intentions--and those of everyone in his group--to further
their own goals. That did not turn them into *bad*
intentions. The bad intentions were those of the negative
intelligences that took advantage of his innocence, his
idealism, his loving nature, his desire to help others
be the best they could possibly be.

 Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes
> about all this and will probably do so again, I will
> continue to address issues if I think it is helpful to do
> so.

Robin is a good and honorable man who treated you with
fairness, respect, and compassion even after you turned
on him.

You can do nothing "helpful" where Robin is concerned other
than wake up, smell the coffee, and acknowledge how
appallingly badly and dishonestly you've treated him due
to your inability to face your own weaknesses. If you are 
incapable of dealing with that reality, just keep your
poisonous trap shut about him. 

You are the most toxic personality I have ever encountered.
You make my skin crawl.

And I notice you slithered away from responding to my
question:

> > Yes, the whole situation became confusing, agonizing and
> > eventually poignant. Even more reason to immediately name
> > the hallucination or delusion or pragyaparadh when it
> > appears so that unnecessary suffering can be avoided.
>
> And what is it that will do this "naming" for us, Share?

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

2012-12-07 Thread FFL PostCount

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Dec 01 00:00:00 2012
End Date (UTC): Sat Dec 08 00:00:00 2012
810 messages as of (UTC) Fri Dec 07 23:52:03 2012

50 authfriend 
49 nablusoss1008 
49 emptybill 
49 Buck 
48 awoelflebater 
47 turquoiseb 
45 Share Long 
44 Emily Reyn 
43 Ravi Chivukula 
39 Michael Jackson 
34 John 
31 laughinggull108 
30 doctordumb...@rocketmail.com, UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@".SYNTAX-ERROR.
27 Bhairitu 
27 Alex Stanley 
23 raunchydog 
22 seventhray1 
18 feste37 
18 Robin Carlsen 
17 card 
15 salyavin808 
12 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
 8 merlin 
 7 Duveyoung 
 7 "Richard J. Williams" 
 6 wgm4u 
 6 Susan 
 6 Mike Dixon 
 6 "emilymae.reyn" 
 4 mjackson74 
 3 seekliberation 
 3 Rick Archer 
 3 PaliGap 
 3 "martin.quickman" 
 2 sparaig 
 2 merudanda 
 1 sri...@ymail.com, UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@".SYNTAX-ERROR.
 1 mainstream20016 
 1 Yifu 
 1 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 1 Dick Mays 
 1 David 
 1 Bill Coop 

Posters: 43
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: Will official Gay Marriage relieve Gays from their guilt?

2012-12-07 Thread Alex Stanley



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
>
> Now that they're married will they feel free of guilt and shame that 
> 'society' (ostensibly) has put on them?
> 
> Is one of the reasons they want gay marriage to assuage their guilt over 
> their 'unusual' sexual behavior? thinking that by society condoning it they 
> would feel relieved?
> 
> Or, do any of them actually have any guilt at all, and if so, is it for real 
> (i.e. from their God given conscience) or just social/religious programing?
> 
> And if it's from their conscience could that mean that actually homosexuality 
> is indeed wrong? At least for them? and maybe a clarion call for the rest of 
> us? Could homosexuality actually be wrong and immoral?
> 
> Enquiring minds want to know. :-)
>

 sniff sniff 

Smells like...

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

[FairfieldLife] Re: Will official Gay Marriage relieve Gays from their guilt?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
> >
> > Now that they're married will they feel free of guilt and shame that 
> > 'society' (ostensibly) has put on them?
> 
> Not sure anyone is feeling the 'shame' and 'guilt' either before marriage or 
> after.
> > 
> > Is one of the reasons they want gay marriage to assuage their guilt over 
> > their 'unusual' sexual behavior? thinking that by society condoning it they 
> > would feel relieved?
> 
> I seriously doubt it.
> > 
> > Or, do any of them actually have any guilt at all, and if so, is it for 
> > real (i.e. from their God given conscience) or just social/religious 
> > programing?
> 
> I love how you keep using the word "they" and "them" like homosexuals are 
> some sort of specimen in a petri dish.
> > 
> > And if it's from their conscience could that mean that actually 
> > homosexuality is indeed wrong? At least for them? and maybe a clarion call 
> > for the rest of us? Could homosexuality actually be wrong and immoral?
> > 
> > Enquiring minds want to know. :-)
> 
> It would be nice to think you actually are inquiring and didn't already have 
> your mind made up on all of this. However, I get the distinct impression you 
> won't be taking that walk down the aisle with your same-sex partner anytime 
> soon.

Why do you suppose young homosexuals commit suicide? Hasn't the Gay lobby 
suggested it's because of social programming and society needs to be 
re-educated, starting in the schools? I know in some cases it is explained 
because of bullying, but not all. And not all gays want to be married anyway.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Will official Gay Marriage relieve Gays from their guilt?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
>
> Now that they're married will they feel free of guilt and shame that 
> 'society' (ostensibly) has put on them?

Not sure anyone is feeling the 'shame' and 'guilt' either before marriage or 
after.
> 
> Is one of the reasons they want gay marriage to assuage their guilt over 
> their 'unusual' sexual behavior? thinking that by society condoning it they 
> would feel relieved?

I seriously doubt it.
> 
> Or, do any of them actually have any guilt at all, and if so, is it for real 
> (i.e. from their God given conscience) or just social/religious programing?

I love how you keep using the word "they" and "them" like homosexuals are some 
sort of specimen in a petri dish.
> 
> And if it's from their conscience could that mean that actually homosexuality 
> is indeed wrong? At least for them? and maybe a clarion call for the rest of 
> us? Could homosexuality actually be wrong and immoral?
> 
> Enquiring minds want to know. :-)

It would be nice to think you actually are inquiring and didn't already have 
your mind made up on all of this. However, I get the distinct impression you 
won't be taking that walk down the aisle with your same-sex partner anytime 
soon.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: our place in the Universe

OMG...the universe is so full of stars that it appears as solid white in
this picture...no dark regions at all that I can detect. However, I do
detect some larger red regions accompanied by clusters of smaller brown
regions that appear in the shape of letters of our alphabet. Amazing!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>ANTARES IS THE 15TH BRIGHTEST STAR IN THE SKY.
> >>IT IS MORE THAN 1000 LIGHT YEARS AWAY.
> >>
> >>--
..
> >>
> >>THIS IS A HUBBLE TELESCOPE ULTRA DEEP FIELD INFRARED VIEW OF
COUNTLESS
> >>'ENTIRE' GALAXIES BILLIONS OF LIGHT-YEARS AWAY.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>BELOW IS A CLOSE UP OF ONE OF THE DARKEST REGIONS OF THE PHOTO ABOVE
> >>
> >>
> >>.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: our place in the Universe

OMG...the universe is so full of stars that it appears as solid white in this 
picture...no dark regions at all that I can detect. However, I do detect some 
red regions that appear in the shape of letters of our alphabet. Amazing!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>ANTARES IS THE 15TH BRIGHTEST STAR IN THE SKY. 
> >>IT IS MORE THAN 1000 LIGHT YEARS AWAY. 
> >>
> >>-- .. 
> >>
> >>THIS IS A HUBBLE TELESCOPE ULTRA DEEP FIELD INFRARED VIEW OF COUNTLESS 
> >>'ENTIRE' GALAXIES BILLIONS OF LIGHT-YEARS AWAY. 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>BELOW IS A CLOSE UP OF ONE OF THE DARKEST REGIONS OF THE PHOTO ABOVE 
> >>
> >>
> >>. 
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>

[FairfieldLife] Will official Gay Marriage relieve Gays from their guilt?

Now that they're married will they feel free of guilt and shame that 'society' 
(ostensibly) has put on them?

Is one of the reasons they want gay marriage to assuage their guilt over their 
'unusual' sexual behavior? thinking that by society condoning it they would 
feel relieved?

Or, do any of them actually have any guilt at all, and if so, is it for real 
(i.e. from their God given conscience) or just social/religious programing?

And if it's from their conscience could that mean that actually homosexuality 
is indeed wrong? At least for them? and maybe a clarion call for the rest of 
us? Could homosexuality actually be wrong and immoral?

Enquiring minds want to know. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Benefit Gala for DLF, Lincoln Center, December 13

2012-12-07 Thread nablusoss1008

 * Contact Us 
CHANGE BEGINS WITHIN   [you are invited to AN HISTORIC NIGHT OF JAZZ] 
[Purchase Tickets] 
  Honoring
Barbara and Ray Dalio

Lisa and Dr. Mehmet Oz
IN CONCERT
herbie
hancock

wynton
marsalis

wayne
shorter

corinne
bailey rae

Esperanza
Spalding

Terri Lyne
Carrington
Hosted By
david lynch

george stephanopoulos
PROCEEDS FROM THE BENEFIT WILL PROVIDE
TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION PROGRAMS FOR:
At-risk youth in underserved schools
Veterans with PTS and their families
Women and girls who are victims of violence, abuse and rape
6:00 PM Cocktail Reception  7:00 PM Concert and Conversation
Dinner Celebration to Follow in the Allen Room
Cocktail Attire
PHOTO CREDITS Allen Room: Brad Feinknopf  Herbie Hancock: Douglas
Kirkland  Wynton Marsalis: Clay McBride
Wayne Shorter: Andrew Hurlburt  Esperanza Spalding: Takuo Sato
 Terri Lyne Carrington: Phil Farnsworth

[FairfieldLife] Bill Clinton: US Ambassador to Ireland?

He once quipped that he could run for president of Ireland.

http://news.yahoo.com/bill-clinton-us-ambassador-ireland-rumors-catch-fire-185904813.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

Robin you sent me 3 emails on Sept 26 so I don't think of Sept 18 as the formal 
ending of our correspondence.  I have compiled those with my replies.  Do you 
think it would be beneficial to post them?  In addition, this is not my total 
response to you on Sept 18.  Do you think it would be beneficial to post my 
other reply to you from Sept 18?  

I have read all your posts from today including your reply to Salyavin which 
contained the excerpts below:
Robin to Salya:
She said I mentally raped her. Her letters absolutely contradict this.
She continues to discuss and describe me in psychopathological terms--as
 if I have been rendered speechless and helpless--that I cannot answer 
her.

Share replies to Robin's comments to Salya:
I used the term psychological rape and I described that as your attributing 
thoughts and feelings to me which I did not have.  I'm sure my letters also 
included responses to those times when you were not doing that.

I have not thought that you were rendered speechless and helpless, unable to 
answer me.  I assumed you were choosing that course of action.  That of course 
is your right just as it is my right to reply to Judy or Emily or anyone else 
even if the topic touches on you.

About your inner state, I was as careful as I was able to be in what I said.  
What I remember is that I never talked about demonic possession or spiritual 
vampirism or even NPD except once to note what others were saying.  And though 
aware that it sounded hokey, I limited myself to saying that I wish complete 
healing for you and even avoided commenting on your self meta psychotherapy and 
or your interactions with Terrence.  

I have never experienced what I have experienced with you.  But in
 looking back into the archives I see that even at the beginning there was 
evidence of what upset me so on Sept 6.  Certainly even before Lord Knows 
confronted you, I mentioned to you that I felt you were trying to change me.  
My understanding now is that during that lull between us I began to do what 
Bill Howell calls snapping out of it.  Nonetheless I regret how I replied to 
you on Sept 6.  Certainly I would reply differently now.  

I am not embarrassed by my tender feelings for you.  And I remain clear that 
they are feelings of friendship.  Nor am I flummoxed by conflicting feelings 
for you.  I continue to want the best for you in spite of all that has 
transpired between us.    

Thus, my present reply to you remains the same as it was on Nov 18.  I wish 
more peace and enjoyment for FFL and will act in accord with this intention the 
best that I can given my limitations etc.  I wish you more peace and enjoyment 
too whatever course of action you choose.  What this last sentence means in 
reference to your posting our offline correspondence is that I wish you more 
peace and enjoyment whether you post them or whether you refrain from posting 
them. 
Share     

 From: Robin Carlsen 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 11:34 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

And here is the formal ending of our correspondence:

From: Blue Caboose 
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:56 PM
Subject: what I wish to tell you now

Dear Share,

I wish only for you to know that after everything we have said to each other 
that I respect you and love you and want you to be happy and to know whatever 
truth God would have you know and understand. I only want you to go to heaven, 
whatever that may be, Share. I have played and teased and challenged and danced 
and argued with you; but now it is at an end, and I must be quiet and accept 
the will of reality in all things. For us, Share, I believe that means that I 
must leave you to your life and your very earnest and sacrificial strivings. 
Please believe me when I tell you that I want only your happiness, and in my 
own way I shall pray for this. It has been a privilege of a kind to carry on 
our conversations all these months, but now, in the writing of this letter, I 
just want to express only my support for you. I have a feeling you will find 
your way in this terrible complexity and tragedy and beauty and miracle that is 
human existence in the 21st
 century. That is it, Share: I have said all that I have wanted to say, or need 
to say. Go safely and know that Robin loves you.

Robin

Your response:

I will miss you.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Note to reader: Here is an excerpt from one of Share Long's letters to Robin:
> 
> "Yes, I agree that our correspondence went deep.  I wish it could have 
> continued deepening.  But somehow, beyond a certain level, our hearts and 
> souls did not match up.  I still care about you and treasure what we shared." 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> >

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

2012-12-07 Thread salyavin808

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Salyavin:
> 
> Are you by any chance a clinical psychologist? You conduct psychotherapy? The 
> only reason i ask is because of the thoughtful and complex reflections you 
> share with us here on FFL--I am referring especially to your remarks about 
> people. They are certainly sensitive and wise.

I told you Robin, I have a gift for summing things up. What you
don't see are the thoughtful and complex reflections that go into
my remarks. Or do I just shoot my mouth off when I see another
tedious attempt to kick start a defunct argument? Which is closer
to truth, better to think or better just to act? I think that no-one
really thinks but we just have spontaneous thoughts and then act and attempt to 
justify them later. Hmmm, I must have thought about that
at some point.

> You were dead wrong about AWB--as your subsequently communication with her 
> proved. (Although you would never acknowledge this.)

Anne is, like most people on here I should think, most likely a very
pleasant person when you get to know her. Doesn't mean I'm not too  because I'm 
an asshole occasionally, or you or anyone.

> This is classic Salyavin--and it is one of those impulses of yours which did 
> not travel through the more subtle parts of your brain.

Yeah, I am a class act

> I knew you would like that.
> 
> Life will never ask you to bear anymore reality than you can, Salyavin.

And I'm guessing you think that reading and inwardly obsessing
on every post about Share said this and Robin said that will
teach me something about reality that I don't already know?

> But this, this was a beaut.
> 
> Thanks.

No worries mate, normally I wouldn't bother even reading as
far as I did but you do go on and keep digging up the rubbish
that - I can promise you - no-one else gives a shit about. But
you can if that's your bag. 

> Robin

[FairfieldLife] Re: If a tree fell in the forest...

2012-12-07 Thread card



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
>
> ...and there was no one present to hear it, would it make a sound?
>

If all humans were colorblind, would the leaves be (mostly, most
of the time) green, and the flowers red, blue, yellow, etc??

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

And here is the formal ending of our correspondence:

From: Blue Caboose  
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:56 PM
Subject: what I wish to tell you now

Dear Share,

I wish only for you to know that after everything we have said to each other 
that I respect you and love you and want you to be happy and to know whatever 
truth God would have you know and understand. I only want you to go to heaven, 
whatever that may be, Share. I have played and teased and challenged and danced 
and argued with you; but now it is at an end, and I must be quiet and accept 
the will of reality in all things. For us, Share, I believe that means that I 
must leave you to your life and your very earnest and sacrificial strivings. 
Please believe me when I tell you that I want only your happiness, and in my 
own way I shall pray for this. It has been a privilege of a kind to carry on 
our conversations all these months, but now, in the writing of this letter, I 
just want to express only my support for you. I have a feeling you will find 
your way in this terrible complexity and tragedy and beauty and miracle that is 
human existence in the 21st century. That is it, Share: I have said all that I 
have wanted to say, or need to say. Go safely and know that Robin loves you.

Robin

Your response:

I will miss you.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Note to reader: Here is an excerpt from one of Share Long's letters to Robin:
> 
> "Yes, I agree that our correspondence went deep.  I wish it could have 
> continued deepening.  But somehow, beyond a certain level, our hearts and 
> souls did not match up.  I still care about you and treasure what we shared." 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Share Long:
> > > 
> > > Would you please state your reasons why you refuse to explain why you 
> > > will not answer my question about the desirability of posting our 
> > > personal correspondence--correspondence which is no different from the 
> > > kind of interactions which take place here on FFL?
> > > 
> > > You keep referring to me by name as if I were someone either dead, or in 
> > > exile, or mute. You continue to discuss me, Share, and yet you will not 
> > > let me show the world exactly what was said between us in those letters.
> > > 
> > > In those letters we both attempted to understand each other. There was no 
> > > insinuation of any kind of problem such as to make you say much later 
> > > that I had violated you in some way. I find you innocently treacherous in 
> > > all that you write about me, and I believe that posting that 
> > > correspondence will allow everyone to understand what this matter is 
> > > between you and myself.
> > > 
> > > I ask that you answer my request sincerely, Share (You must have some 
> > > valid reason for ignoring my question: please state it.). Until you do 
> > > this I will continue to interpret your allusions to myself as a 
> > > deliberate and provocative attempt to engage in a conversation which at 
> > > one point I simply deemed pointless--As the record will show, Share,  
> > > once I stopped writing to you, you continued to write to me.
> > > 
> > > How about it, Share? Shall we put our cards out on the table?
> > > 
> > > Robin
> > 
> > Here is a letter I wrote to you on September 26, 2012. You might wish to 
> > look at your response to that letter. For you have emphatically 
> > contradicted yourself in how you acted subsequently to sending that letter 
> > to me.
> > 
> > 
> > Share,
> > 
> > I believe that the correspondence between you and myself should be posted 
> > on FFL. And I think I will do this.
> > 
> > If you have any objections to my doing this, you can state them, and I will 
> > consider them carefully before going ahead with this.
> > 
> > I feel what passed between us would be of considerable interest to those 
> > trying to understanding what is going on right now.
> > 
> > Especially after you reposted that post from Steve. That is what motivated 
> > me to go ahead and post our correspondence.
> > 
> > I have read through that correspondence; I do not believe--taking in all 
> > the letters--there is anything of a personal nature at all.
> > 
> > So, this is my intention. You can reread the correspondence yourself to see 
> > if there are any letters you would omit.
> > 
> > I believe, then, Share, that our correspondence could, quite conceivably, 
> > taken place on FFL. And unless you give me evidence of a letter which 
> > obviously was never intended for anyone but you to see, I will post our 
> > correspondence.
> > 
> > Robin
> >  
> >  
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have been 
> > > > under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical 
> > > > hallucination.Â  Your ignoring,

[FairfieldLife] Re: Some of the best duets ever...



Bravo!  They're all excellent.

Here's the classical station here in San Francisco, CA that play all of these 
songs. You can listen to it on-line.

http://www.kdfc.com/Listen-Online-/5809385



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
>
> 
> Brightman/Bocelli Time to say goodbye.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl9WMIPzd6w
> 
> Delibes Flower Duet from Lakme
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JzrqVkyRbM
> 
> Offenbach Barcarolle
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u0M4CMq7uI
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

Yes -  I think so, beautiful analysis by the Salivating Puppy, he is surely
a clinical psychologist and he should work on Barry.

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Robin Carlsen wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salyavin:
>
> Are you by any chance a clinical psychologist? You conduct psychotherapy?
> The only reason i ask is because of the thoughtful and complex reflections
> you share with us here on FFL--I am referring especially to your remarks
> about people. They are certainly sensitive and wise.
>
> Like this one.
>
> She said I mentally raped her. Her letters absolutely contradict this.
>
> She continues to discuss and describe me in psychopathological terms--as
> if I have been rendered speechless and helpless--that I cannot answer her.
>
> You were dead wrong about AWB--as your subsequently communication with her
> proved. (Although you would never acknowledge this.)
>
> This is classic Salyavin--and it is one of those impulses of yours which
> did not travel through the more subtle parts of your brain.
>
> I knew you would like that.
>
> Life will never ask you to bear anymore reality than you can, Salyavin.
>
> But this, this was a beaut.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Robin
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Share Long:
> > >
> > > Would you please state your reasons why you refuse to explain why you
> will not answer my question about the desirability of posting our personal
> correspondence--correspondence which is no different from the kind of
> interactions which take place here on FFL?
> >
> > Maybe she's realised no-one gives a shit.
>
> >
> >
> > > You keep referring to me by name as if I were someone either dead, or
> in exile, or mute. You continue to discuss me, Share, and yet you will not
> let me show the world exactly what was said between us in those letters.
> > >
> > > In those letters we both attempted to understand each other. There was
> no insinuation of any kind of problem such as to make you say much later
> that I had violated you in some way. I find you innocently treacherous in
> all that you write about me, and I believe that posting that correspondence
> will allow everyone to understand what this matter is between you and
> myself.
> > >
> > > I ask that you answer my request sincerely, Share (You must have some
> valid reason for ignoring my question: please state it.). Until you do this
> I will continue to interpret your allusions to myself as a deliberate and
> provocative attempt to engage in a conversation which at one point I simply
> deemed pointless--As the record will show, Share, once I stopped writing to
> you, you continued to write to me.
> > >
> > > How about it, Share? Shall we put our cards out on the table?
> >
> > Please don't.
>
> >
> > > Robin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have
> been under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical
> hallucination.Â  Your ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that self
> proclamation of his perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT
> and is not IMO helpful in the present.Â  This is what I am addressing, the
> present.Â  Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes about all this
> and will probably do so again, I will continue to address issues if I think
> it is helpful to do so. Â  Â Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > From: authfriend 
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:01 PM
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell,
> author of CULT
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > JS,
> > > >
> > > > My name is Judy.
> > > >
> > > > > I don't think that what Robin calls the mystical hallucination
> > > > > of his UC could, from the POV of simple logic, give rise to
> > > > > intentions which you describe as the absolute best and purest.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think the "POV of simple logic" (yours in particular)
> > > > is adequate to address that highly unusual situation such as
> > > > to be able to determine the nature of Robin's intentions. It's
> > > > the wrong tool for the job. (And in this case, your contorted,
> spiteful personal animus toward Robin, which drives you to
> > > > find his intentions less than good and pure no matter what,
> > > > disqualifies you from having any useful insights into what was
> > > > going on.)
> > > >
> > > > > Logic indicates simply that the intentions at their very
> > > > > inception were based in hallucination. I think calling them,
> > > > > especially in hindsight, the absolute best and purest
> > > > > continues the hallucination in a small but significant
> > > > > amount.Â Significant because that small amount exists in the
> >

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

Oh paranoid, delusional, narcissist Barry baby, you need hugs? Need love?
Kisses?

You need to stop this obsessing over Judy and Robin - it's rather clinical.

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 11:09 AM, turquoiseb wrote:

> **
>
>
> *God, what an insufferably narcissistic drama queen. *
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Salyavin:
> >
> > Are you by any chance a clinical psychologist? You conduct
> psychotherapy? The only reason i ask is because of the thoughtful and
> complex reflections you share with us here on FFL--I am referring
> especially to your remarks about people. They are certainly sensitive and
> wise.
> >
> > Like this one.
> >
> > She said I mentally raped her. Her letters absolutely contradict this.
> >
> > She continues to discuss and describe me in psychopathological terms--as
> if I have been rendered speechless and helpless--that I cannot answer her.
> >
> > You were dead wrong about AWB--as your subsequently communication with
> her proved. (Although you would never acknowledge this.)
> >
> > This is classic Salyavin--and it is one of those impulses of yours which
> did not travel through the more subtle parts of your brain.
> >
> > I knew you would like that.
> >
> > Life will never ask you to bear anymore reality than you can, Salyavin.
> >
> > But this, this was a beaut.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Robin
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" fintlewoodlewix@wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Share Long:
> > > >
> > > > Would you please state your reasons why you refuse to explain why
> you will not answer my question about the desirability of posting our
> personal correspondence--correspondence which is no different from the kind
> of interactions which take place here on FFL?
> > >
> > > Maybe she's realised no-one gives a shit.
> > >
> > >
> > > > You keep referring to me by name as if I were someone either dead,
> or in exile, or mute. You continue to discuss me, Share, and yet you will
> not let me show the world exactly what was said between us in those letters.
> > > >
> > > > In those letters we both attempted to understand each other. There
> was no insinuation of any kind of problem such as to make you say much
> later that I had violated you in some way. I find you innocently
> treacherous in all that you write about me, and I believe that posting that
> correspondence will allow everyone to understand what this matter is
> between you and myself.
> > > >
> > > > I ask that you answer my request sincerely, Share (You must have
> some valid reason for ignoring my question: please state it.). Until you do
> this I will continue to interpret your allusions to myself as a deliberate
> and provocative attempt to engage in a conversation which at one point I
> simply deemed pointless--As the record will show, Share, once I stopped
> writing to you, you continued to write to me.
> > > >
> > > > How about it, Share? Shall we put our cards out on the table?
> > >
> > > Please don't.
> > >
> > > > Robin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have
> been under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical
> hallucination.Â  Your ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that self
> proclamation of his perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT
> and is not IMO helpful in the present.Â  This is what I am addressing, the
> present.Â  Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes about all this
> and will probably do so again, I will continue to address issues if I think
> it is helpful to do so. Â  Â Â
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > From: authfriend 
> > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:01 PM
> > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell,
> author of CULT
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JS,
> > > > >
> > > > > My name is Judy.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think that what Robin calls the mystical hallucination
> > > > > > of his UC could, from the POV of simple logic, give rise to
> > > > > > intentions which you describe as the absolute best and purest.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think the "POV of simple logic" (yours in particular)
> > > > > is adequate to address that highly unusual situation such as
> > > > > to be able to determine the nature of Robin's intentions. It's
> > > > > the wrong tool for the job. (And in this case, your contorted,
> spiteful personal animus toward Robin, which drives you to
> > > > > find his intentions less than good and pure no matter what,
> > > > > disqualifies you from having any useful insights into what was
> > > > > going on.)
> > > > >
> > >

[FairfieldLife] For Emily: A Question for a Washington State Resident

Are there now legal stores in Seattle where we can buy marijuana?  If yes, does 
the federal government allow it to open?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: If a tree fell in the forest...

And the critters, many with hearing more acute than ours, would be present to 
hear it.

 From: John 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 1:13 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: If a tree fell in the forest...

Yes.  The laws of physics would dictate that a sound would be produced when the 
tree hits the ground.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
>
> ...and there was no one present to hear it, would it make a sound?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Karma breaks glasses?

2012-12-07 Thread card

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card"  wrote:
>
> 
> Mentalist Noora [nor-uh] Karma uses the "power of mind":
> 
> http://areena.yle.fi/tv/1762659
> 
> About 5:30 ->
>

Next February, she's gonna try something which to me
seems next to impossible: predict (correctly?) the results of six
games in Finnish ice hockey league! :O

[FairfieldLife] Re: If a tree fell in the forest...

Yes.  The laws of physics would dictate that a sound would be produced when the 
tree hits the ground.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
>
> ...and there was no one present to hear it, would it make a sound?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: If a tree fell in the forest...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
>
> ...and there was no one present to hear it, would it make a sound?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8CibAuvZM4

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

God, what an insufferably narcissistic drama queen.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
wrote:
>
> Salyavin:
>
> Are you by any chance a clinical psychologist? You conduct
psychotherapy? The only reason i ask is because of the thoughtful and
complex reflections you share with us here on FFL--I am referring
especially to your remarks about people. They are certainly sensitive
and wise.
>
> Like this one.
>
> She said I mentally raped her. Her letters absolutely contradict this.
>
> She continues to discuss and describe me in psychopathological
terms--as if I have been rendered speechless and helpless--that I cannot
answer her.
>
> You were dead wrong about AWB--as your subsequently communication with
her proved. (Although you would never acknowledge this.)
>
> This is classic Salyavin--and it is one of those impulses of yours
which did not travel through the more subtle parts of your brain.
>
> I knew you would like that.
>
> Life will never ask you to bear anymore reality than you can,
Salyavin.
>
> But this, this was a beaut.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Robin
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" fintlewoodlewix@
wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
wrote:
> > >
> > > Share Long:
> > >
> > > Would you please state your reasons why you refuse to explain why
you will not answer my question about the desirability of posting our
personal correspondence--correspondence which is no different from the
kind of interactions which take place here on FFL?
> >
> > Maybe she's realised no-one gives a shit.
> >
> >
> > > You keep referring to me by name as if I were someone either dead,
or in exile, or mute. You continue to discuss me, Share, and yet you
will not let me show the world exactly what was said between us in those
letters.
> > >
> > > In those letters we both attempted to understand each other. There
was no insinuation of any kind of problem such as to make you say much
later that I had violated you in some way. I find you innocently
treacherous in all that you write about me, and I believe that posting
that correspondence will allow everyone to understand what this matter
is between you and myself.
> > >
> > > I ask that you answer my request sincerely, Share (You must have
some valid reason for ignoring my question: please state it.). Until you
do this I will continue to interpret your allusions to myself as a
deliberate and provocative attempt to engage in a conversation which at
one point I simply deemed pointless--As the record will show, Share, 
once I stopped writing to you, you continued to write to me.
> > >
> > > How about it, Share? Shall we put our cards out on the table?
> >
> > Please don't.
> >
> > > Robin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would
have been under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical
hallucination.Â  Your ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that
self proclamation of his perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into the
PRESENT and is not IMO helpful in the present.Â  This is what I am
addressing, the present.Â  Though I recognize that I've made some
mistakes about all this and will probably do so again, I will continue
to address issues if I think it is helpful to do so. Â  Â Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >  From: authfriend 
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:01 PM
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill
Howell, author of CULT
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > JS,
> > > >
> > > > My name is Judy.
> > > >
> > > > > I don't think that what Robin calls the mystical hallucination
> > > > > of his UC could, from the POV of simple logic, give rise to
> > > > > intentions which you describe as the absolute best and purest.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think the "POV of simple logic" (yours in particular)
> > > > is adequate to address that highly unusual situation such as
> > > > to be able to determine the nature of Robin's intentions. It's
> > > > the wrong tool for the job. (And in this case, your contorted,
spiteful personal animus toward Robin, which drives you to
> > > > find his intentions less than good and pure no matter what,
> > > > disqualifies you from having any useful insights into what was
> > > > going on.)
> > > >
> > > > > Logic indicates simply that the intentions at their very
> > > > > inception were based in hallucination. I think calling them,
> > > > > especially in hindsight, the absolute best and purest
> > > > > continues the hallucination in a small but significant
> > > > > amount.Â Significant because that small amount exists in
the
> > > > > very core of the larger matter. Thus is useful IMO to be
> > > > > named.
> > > >
> > > > I would not expect you to see thi

[FairfieldLife] If a tree fell in the forest...

...and there was no one present to hear it, would it make a sound?

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

Salyavin:

Are you by any chance a clinical psychologist? You conduct psychotherapy? The 
only reason i ask is because of the thoughtful and complex reflections you 
share with us here on FFL--I am referring especially to your remarks about 
people. They are certainly sensitive and wise.

Like this one.

She said I mentally raped her. Her letters absolutely contradict this.

She continues to discuss and describe me in psychopathological terms--as if I 
have been rendered speechless and helpless--that I cannot answer her.

You were dead wrong about AWB--as your subsequently communication with her 
proved. (Although you would never acknowledge this.)

This is classic Salyavin--and it is one of those impulses of yours which did 
not travel through the more subtle parts of your brain.

I knew you would like that.

Life will never ask you to bear anymore reality than you can, Salyavin.

But this, this was a beaut.

Thanks.

Robin

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > Share Long:
> > 
> > Would you please state your reasons why you refuse to explain why you will 
> > not answer my question about the desirability of posting our personal 
> > correspondence--correspondence which is no different from the kind of 
> > interactions which take place here on FFL?
> 
> Maybe she's realised no-one gives a shit.
> 
> 
> > You keep referring to me by name as if I were someone either dead, or in 
> > exile, or mute. You continue to discuss me, Share, and yet you will not let 
> > me show the world exactly what was said between us in those letters.
> > 
> > In those letters we both attempted to understand each other. There was no 
> > insinuation of any kind of problem such as to make you say much later that 
> > I had violated you in some way. I find you innocently treacherous in all 
> > that you write about me, and I believe that posting that correspondence 
> > will allow everyone to understand what this matter is between you and 
> > myself.
> > 
> > I ask that you answer my request sincerely, Share (You must have some valid 
> > reason for ignoring my question: please state it.). Until you do this I 
> > will continue to interpret your allusions to myself as a deliberate and 
> > provocative attempt to engage in a conversation which at one point I simply 
> > deemed pointless--As the record will show, Share,  once I stopped writing 
> > to you, you continued to write to me.
> > 
> > How about it, Share? Shall we put our cards out on the table?
> 
> Please don't.
>  
> > Robin
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have been 
> > > under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical 
> > > hallucination.Â  Your ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that self 
> > > proclamation of his perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into the 
> > > PRESENT and is not IMO helpful in the present.Â  This is what I am 
> > > addressing, the present.Â  Though I recognize that I've made some 
> > > mistakes about all this and will probably do so again, I will continue to 
> > > address issues if I think it is helpful to do so. Â  Â Â  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: authfriend 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:01 PM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author 
> > > of CULT
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Â  
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > JS,
> > > 
> > > My name is Judy.
> > > 
> > > > I don't think that what Robin calls the mystical hallucination
> > > > of his UC could, from the POV of simple logic, give rise to 
> > > > intentions which you describe as the absolute best and purest.
> > > 
> > > I don't think the "POV of simple logic" (yours in particular)
> > > is adequate to address that highly unusual situation such as
> > > to be able to determine the nature of Robin's intentions. It's
> > > the wrong tool for the job. (And in this case, your contorted, spiteful 
> > > personal animus toward Robin, which drives you to 
> > > find his intentions less than good and pure no matter what,
> > > disqualifies you from having any useful insights into what was
> > > going on.)
> > > 
> > > > Logic indicates simply that the intentions at their very
> > > > inception were based in hallucination. I think calling them, 
> > > > especially in hindsight, the absolute best and purest
> > > > continues the hallucination in a small but significant
> > > > amount.Â Significant because that small amount exists in the
> > > > very core of the larger matter. Thus is useful IMO to be
> > > > named.
> > > 
> > > I would not expect you to see things any differently, Share.
> > > Your propensity to rewrite reality to suit your own needs
> > > will not permit you to acquire

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

2012-12-07 Thread salyavin808



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Share Long:
> 
> Would you please state your reasons why you refuse to explain why you will 
> not answer my question about the desirability of posting our personal 
> correspondence--correspondence which is no different from the kind of 
> interactions which take place here on FFL?

Maybe she's realised no-one gives a shit.


> You keep referring to me by name as if I were someone either dead, or in 
> exile, or mute. You continue to discuss me, Share, and yet you will not let 
> me show the world exactly what was said between us in those letters.
> 
> In those letters we both attempted to understand each other. There was no 
> insinuation of any kind of problem such as to make you say much later that I 
> had violated you in some way. I find you innocently treacherous in all that 
> you write about me, and I believe that posting that correspondence will allow 
> everyone to understand what this matter is between you and myself.
> 
> I ask that you answer my request sincerely, Share (You must have some valid 
> reason for ignoring my question: please state it.). Until you do this I will 
> continue to interpret your allusions to myself as a deliberate and 
> provocative attempt to engage in a conversation which at one point I simply 
> deemed pointless--As the record will show, Share,  once I stopped writing to 
> you, you continued to write to me.
> 
> How about it, Share? Shall we put our cards out on the table?

Please don't.
 
> Robin
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have been 
> > under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical 
> > hallucination.Â  Your ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that self 
> > proclamation of his perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT 
> > and is not IMO helpful in the present.Â  This is what I am addressing, the 
> > present.Â  Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes about all this 
> > and will probably do so again, I will continue to address issues if I think 
> > it is helpful to do so. Â  Â Â  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: authfriend 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:01 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of 
> > CULT
> >  
> > 
> > Â  
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > JS,
> > 
> > My name is Judy.
> > 
> > > I don't think that what Robin calls the mystical hallucination
> > > of his UC could, from the POV of simple logic, give rise to 
> > > intentions which you describe as the absolute best and purest.
> > 
> > I don't think the "POV of simple logic" (yours in particular)
> > is adequate to address that highly unusual situation such as
> > to be able to determine the nature of Robin's intentions. It's
> > the wrong tool for the job. (And in this case, your contorted, spiteful 
> > personal animus toward Robin, which drives you to 
> > find his intentions less than good and pure no matter what,
> > disqualifies you from having any useful insights into what was
> > going on.)
> > 
> > > Logic indicates simply that the intentions at their very
> > > inception were based in hallucination. I think calling them, 
> > > especially in hindsight, the absolute best and purest
> > > continues the hallucination in a small but significant
> > > amount.Â Significant because that small amount exists in the
> > > very core of the larger matter. Thus is useful IMO to be
> > > named.
> > 
> > I would not expect you to see things any differently, Share.
> > Your propensity to rewrite reality to suit your own needs
> > will not permit you to acquire a more subtle understanding
> > of the complex metaphysics of what took place with Robin and
> > his group.
> > 
> > > Yes, the whole situation became confusing, agonizing and
> > > eventually poignant. Even more reason to immediately name
> > > the hallucination or delusion or pragyaparadh when it
> > > appears so that unnecessary suffering can be avoided.
> > 
> > And what is it that will do this "naming" for us, Share?
> > 
> > Careful...
> > 
> > > PSÂ  And yes again, I thought I was communicating with you and
> > > Ann in my posts about Edwin Coppard's ideas.Â  If you thought
> > > I wasn't, how would you change what I wrote to make it fall
> > > within your category of communicating?
> > 
> > Not playing that game with you, Share. I asked a question, you 
> > answered it. I did not express an opinion.
> > 
> > >  From: authfriend 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:40 PM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author 
> > > of CULT
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ÃÂ  
> > > Couple of comments below, Robin.
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> >

[FairfieldLife] Re: La Boheme snapshots

Ditto, I remember seeing it when it premiered in 1983 in a packed theater in 
Beverly Hills, (it didn't have a wide release). I remember falling in love with 
Teresa Stratas at the time, WOW, went out and bought the Album and vhs 
cassette. Great opera and great entertainment, one of the cutest ballet scenes 
ever below, from the movie: 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25T3miEeZwI


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
>
> This is one of the all-time great opera movies. I have lost count of the 
> number of times I have watched it. The purists don't like it, but I think 
> it's wonderful. I don't see how anyone could watch this and not become an 
> opera fan. Violetta is also the loveliest of opera heroines. The woman is a 
> saint!
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > This is why Pavarotti is so celebrated and why Puccini's La Boheme
> > > is so famous.
> > > 
> > > Here he performs with the heart-touching Fiamma Izzo d'Amico as
> > > Mimi:
> > > 
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkHGUaB1Bs8
> > > 
> > > 
> > > More:
> > > 
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzPW8mXX3bg&feature=endscreen&NR=1
> > > 
> > > 
> > > With the quartet aria:
> > > 
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZGDmpduIHE
> > > 
> > > 
> > > And the tragic ending:
> > > 
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuJFTJCUtpY
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > 
> > One of my favorites-La Traviata with Placido Domingo and Teresa Stratas 
> > directed by Zeffirelli, (Though Pavarotti was one of a kind, truly 
> > exceptional):
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcKdnkGBSgA
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
>
> MJ, obviously he caught both of us. Guilty conscience, I guess!
> 
> I was completely unaware that you were making a response at the same time 
> that I was. It's interesting to compare the two responses...there's a whole 
> lotta' truth buried in what both of us have written.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > Shoot, I thought he meant me!

Not to worry, I've been known to mix up a post or two! At least I'm in good 
company.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: laughinggull108 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 9:56 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra
> >  
> > 
> > Â  
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > > > Anyway, the bottom line is that hardly anybody pays much
> > > > > > > attention to Barry these days except to make fun of him.
> > > > > > > 
> > > 
> > > But Judy, isn't it nice that the Turqo now has a new fan here ? Since 
> > > Curtis and Vaj are not posting here these days nobody cares about his 
> > > slanders, lies, unstressing and self-promotion anymore. 
> > > Must be a relief that a new wacko finally arrives who admires him :-)
> > >
> > 
> > I could be wrong, but I'm assuming, nablusoss, that you are referring to 
> > me. While not necessarily a "fan", I tend to find something to appreciate 
> > and possibly acknowledge from postings of most of the members of this 
> > forum. In this case, I can appreciate Barry's artistic insights into the 
> > movie Apocalypto rather than what he's got going with Judy...I thought I 
> > made that clear in my last sentence. I appreciated your posting a link a 
> > week or so ago with regard to Maharishi talking about Love and God:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgzX2dtdeGE
> > I've also appreciated RD's latest post of her granddaughter's gymnastics 
> > accomplishments, a few of Ravi's posts when they come from his heart, 
> > Robin's posts when they are simple enough for me to understand, etc. While 
> > not a "fan" of any of these people, I can only say that I find some good in 
> > some of what they offer. Rather than being a "fan" of someone, I'm a 
> > respecter of someone if he/she has earned that respect (and sometimes, even 
> > if he/she hasn't because what he/she writes comes from a painful place).
> > 
> > Nablusosss, what you have just tried to do here is to get something 
> > negative started here on FFL, and that must come from a dark place still 
> > inside of you...very dark indeed. I don't respect that. And it will be very 
> > telling from the responses, if any, that you get.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Some of the best duets ever...


Brightman/Bocelli Time to say goodbye.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl9WMIPzd6w

Delibes Flower Duet from Lakme

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

Offenbach Barcarolle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u0M4CMq7uI

[FairfieldLife] Re: La Boheme snapshots

2012-12-07 Thread feste37

This is one of the all-time great opera movies. I have lost count of the number 
of times I have watched it. The purists don't like it, but I think it's 
wonderful. I don't see how anyone could watch this and not become an opera fan. 
Violetta is also the loveliest of opera heroines. The woman is a saint!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > This is why Pavarotti is so celebrated and why Puccini's La Boheme
> > is so famous.
> > 
> > Here he performs with the heart-touching Fiamma Izzo d'Amico as
> > Mimi:
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkHGUaB1Bs8
> > 
> > 
> > More:
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzPW8mXX3bg&feature=endscreen&NR=1
> > 
> > 
> > With the quartet aria:
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZGDmpduIHE
> > 
> > 
> > And the tragic ending:
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuJFTJCUtpY
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   
> 
> One of my favorites-La Traviata with Placido Domingo and Teresa Stratas 
> directed by Zeffirelli, (Though Pavarotti was one of a kind, truly 
> exceptional):
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcKdnkGBSgA
>

[FairfieldLife] President Hillary Clinton

2012-12-07 Thread raunchydog

A friend's husband was cleaning out the garage the other day and found a 2008 
Hillary yard sign. It's now prominently displayed in front of their house. She 
got quiet a few calls saying, "You Go Girl!" I'm thinking of getting a 2016 
Hillary yard sign. I hear a little voice saying, "If you build it, she will 
come."

Tribute video saluting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton looks like a 2016 
campaign ad:  
http://youtu.be/cgIK3LBc-GI

Following the video, Sec. Clinton, before beginning prepared remarks, said:

"I am somewhat overwhelmed, but I'm obviously thinking I should sit down. I 
prepared some remarks for tonight, but then I thought maybe we could just watch 
that video a few more times. And then the next time, I could count the 
hairstyles, which is one of my favorite pastimes. I think I now know what it 
feels like to be one of Haim's Mighty Morphin Power Rangers."

Read more:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/11/201343.htm

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

2012-12-07 Thread doctordumbass

Brilliant satire of High School!!  ...er, it WAS satire, right??...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Note to reader: Here is an excerpt from one of Share Long's letters to Robin:
> 
> "Yes, I agree that our correspondence went deep.  I wish it could have 
> continued deepening.  But somehow, beyond a certain level, our hearts and 
> souls did not match up.  I still care about you and treasure what we shared." 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Share Long:
> > > 
> > > Would you please state your reasons why you refuse to explain why you 
> > > will not answer my question about the desirability of posting our 
> > > personal correspondence--correspondence which is no different from the 
> > > kind of interactions which take place here on FFL?
> > > 
> > > You keep referring to me by name as if I were someone either dead, or in 
> > > exile, or mute. You continue to discuss me, Share, and yet you will not 
> > > let me show the world exactly what was said between us in those letters.
> > > 
> > > In those letters we both attempted to understand each other. There was no 
> > > insinuation of any kind of problem such as to make you say much later 
> > > that I had violated you in some way. I find you innocently treacherous in 
> > > all that you write about me, and I believe that posting that 
> > > correspondence will allow everyone to understand what this matter is 
> > > between you and myself.
> > > 
> > > I ask that you answer my request sincerely, Share (You must have some 
> > > valid reason for ignoring my question: please state it.). Until you do 
> > > this I will continue to interpret your allusions to myself as a 
> > > deliberate and provocative attempt to engage in a conversation which at 
> > > one point I simply deemed pointless--As the record will show, Share,  
> > > once I stopped writing to you, you continued to write to me.
> > > 
> > > How about it, Share? Shall we put our cards out on the table?
> > > 
> > > Robin
> > 
> > Here is a letter I wrote to you on September 26, 2012. You might wish to 
> > look at your response to that letter. For you have emphatically 
> > contradicted yourself in how you acted subsequently to sending that letter 
> > to me.
> > 
> > 
> > Share,
> > 
> > I believe that the correspondence between you and myself should be posted 
> > on FFL. And I think I will do this.
> > 
> > If you have any objections to my doing this, you can state them, and I will 
> > consider them carefully before going ahead with this.
> > 
> > I feel what passed between us would be of considerable interest to those 
> > trying to understanding what is going on right now.
> > 
> > Especially after you reposted that post from Steve. That is what motivated 
> > me to go ahead and post our correspondence.
> > 
> > I have read through that correspondence; I do not believe--taking in all 
> > the letters--there is anything of a personal nature at all.
> > 
> > So, this is my intention. You can reread the correspondence yourself to see 
> > if there are any letters you would omit.
> > 
> > I believe, then, Share, that our correspondence could, quite conceivably, 
> > taken place on FFL. And unless you give me evidence of a letter which 
> > obviously was never intended for anyone but you to see, I will post our 
> > correspondence.
> > 
> > Robin
> >  
> >  
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have been 
> > > > under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical 
> > > > hallucination.Â  Your ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that 
> > > > self proclamation of his perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into 
> > > > the PRESENT and is not IMO helpful in the present.Â  This is what I am 
> > > > addressing, the present.Â  Though I recognize that I've made some 
> > > > mistakes about all this and will probably do so again, I will continue 
> > > > to address issues if I think it is helpful to do so. Â  Â Â  
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  From: authfriend 
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:01 PM
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, 
> > > > author of CULT
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > Â  
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > JS,
> > > > 
> > > > My name is Judy.
> > > > 
> > > > > I don't think that what Robin calls the mystical hallucination
> > > > > of his UC could, from the POV of simple logic, give rise to 
> > > > > intentions which you describe as the absolute best and purest.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think the "POV of simple logic" (yours in particular)
> > > > is adequate to address that highly unusual situation such as
> > > > to

Re: [FairfieldLife] Fairfield Nonprofit group plans to reopen former Co-Ed Theater

2012-12-07 Thread Bhairitu

We have or had some "restored" theaters around here.  The problem with 
many of them except for the Orinda is that they had flat level floors.  
The Lafayette Park was one of the latter.  They actually made popcorn 
that had real butter on it.  They mainly played foreign and independent 
films.  But if you went on a crowded night you might have the bad luck 
of having some 6' 10 guy sit in front of you.  That and rude audience 
behavior has pretty much killed "restored" theaters unless they have 
graduated floors or put in stadium seating.  The latter tends to piss 
off the preservationists though.

Of course some of us have home theaters complete with surround systems 
so don't like to bother with theaters and there is a PAUSE button which 
I can't seem to find in the theaters.  Home theater is no longer the 
domain of the rich.  Look at the prices of big screens.  I paid $900 for 
nice 27" Mits set in 1991.  For that today I could get a 55" LED screen.
Good speakers are nice to have though and I have a nice set of Klipsch.

On 12/07/2012 04:50 AM, Share Long wrote:
> Hey Buck, great to know the details about this.  Yeah, it gives a little lift 
> to my heart when I see the new message on the marquee.  Thanks for posting.  
> Sometimes I think that our community in Fairfield is one of the coolest 
> outcomes of TM.  I feel fortunate to live here.  Wish similar for everyone.  
> Well, only if they wish it too yada yada (-:
>
>
>
> 
>   From: Buck 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 10:13 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Fairfield Nonprofit group plans to reopen former 
> Co-Ed Theater
>   
>
>
> FW: Girindra Selleck was the only participant tall enough to reach the area 
> on the old Co-Ed marquee to put up the new lettering stating that a new 
> theater is coming in 2013. Handing the letters to him is Neil Cunningham, 
> while his father Thomas Selleck gives directions. The reopened theater will 
> be called the Orpheum Theatre under nonprofit status and will show first run 
> movies in the remodeled space.
>
> The Co-Ed Theater is exhibiting signs of life for the first time since Big 
> Time Cinema deserted the operation due to bankruptcy less than three months 
> ago.
>
> A handful of residents gathered at noon Wednesday to letter the vacant 
> marquee to read, "New Theatre coming 2013." The declaration was the first 
> visible indication of new management, not by a private operator as might be 
> expected, but instead by a gathering of citizens eager to transform the 
> facility into a state-of-the-art, community-run theater. To that end, about a 
> dozen residents led by Patricia Draznin, Sheila Ross and John Matthews have 
> formed a nonprofit registered with the state, the Orpheum Theatre and 
> Fairfield Film Institute.
>
> While many were mourning the loss of the Co-Ed in September, Draznin secretly 
> rejoiced. She had her eye on the Co-Ed ever since she read about the State 
> Theatre in Traverse City, Mich., in 2007. She learned how the nonprofit 
> Traverse City Film Festival refurbished the century theater with the help of 
> director Michael Moore, where it now shows 365 movies per year.
>
> When the news broke the Co-Ed had closed, Draznin said she picked up her 
> phone immediately to call the theater's managing owner, Chris Johnson of 
> Mandala 6 Land Partners.
>
> "I told him, `I'm really excited the Co-Ed closed, it's a great 
> opportunity,'" said Draznin. "We could turn it into something really good."
>
> Draznin was not alone. Johnson said he received a flood of calls from people 
> with ideas for the theater's future.
>
> Johnson encouraged the group to form a nonprofit, which would allow them the 
> freedom to choose movies, and to raise the money to convert both theaters to 
> digital technology, the new industrywide standard.
>
> Draznin began researching for examples of communities that successfully had 
> raised money to refurbish their town's historic movie theaters. She found a 
> dozen in Iowa including, Pella, Washington, De Witt, Lake Mills, 
> Marshalltown, Denison and Mount Pleasant.
>
> "All over Iowa there are theaters, which have already done the same thing and 
> succeeded in refurbishing, converting to digital and are now operating in the 
> black," she said. "We feel very confident that once we're ready to start 
> taking donations, it's not going to be a big deal to do."
>
> The committee hopes to raise approximately $300,000 to upgrade both screens, 
> install a new sound system and to put in stadium seating. Johnson plans to 
> invest in renovating the lobby and bathrooms. Mandala 6 Land Partners will 
> manage the project.
>
> The committee's vision is for the theater to feature a variety of first-run 
> movies, old classics and independent films. They plan to have offerings for 
> all ages, with weekend matinees for children, late-night shows for college 
> students and film festivals and pr

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

Note to reader: Here is an excerpt from one of Share Long's letters to Robin:

"Yes, I agree that our correspondence went deep.  I wish it could have 
continued deepening.  But somehow, beyond a certain level, our hearts and souls 
did not match up.  I still care about you and treasure what we shared." 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > Share Long:
> > 
> > Would you please state your reasons why you refuse to explain why you will 
> > not answer my question about the desirability of posting our personal 
> > correspondence--correspondence which is no different from the kind of 
> > interactions which take place here on FFL?
> > 
> > You keep referring to me by name as if I were someone either dead, or in 
> > exile, or mute. You continue to discuss me, Share, and yet you will not let 
> > me show the world exactly what was said between us in those letters.
> > 
> > In those letters we both attempted to understand each other. There was no 
> > insinuation of any kind of problem such as to make you say much later that 
> > I had violated you in some way. I find you innocently treacherous in all 
> > that you write about me, and I believe that posting that correspondence 
> > will allow everyone to understand what this matter is between you and 
> > myself.
> > 
> > I ask that you answer my request sincerely, Share (You must have some valid 
> > reason for ignoring my question: please state it.). Until you do this I 
> > will continue to interpret your allusions to myself as a deliberate and 
> > provocative attempt to engage in a conversation which at one point I simply 
> > deemed pointless--As the record will show, Share,  once I stopped writing 
> > to you, you continued to write to me.
> > 
> > How about it, Share? Shall we put our cards out on the table?
> > 
> > Robin
> 
> Here is a letter I wrote to you on September 26, 2012. You might wish to look 
> at your response to that letter. For you have emphatically contradicted 
> yourself in how you acted subsequently to sending that letter to me.
> 
> 
> Share,
> 
> I believe that the correspondence between you and myself should be posted on 
> FFL. And I think I will do this.
> 
> If you have any objections to my doing this, you can state them, and I will 
> consider them carefully before going ahead with this.
> 
> I feel what passed between us would be of considerable interest to those 
> trying to understanding what is going on right now.
> 
> Especially after you reposted that post from Steve. That is what motivated me 
> to go ahead and post our correspondence.
> 
> I have read through that correspondence; I do not believe--taking in all the 
> letters--there is anything of a personal nature at all.
> 
> So, this is my intention. You can reread the correspondence yourself to see 
> if there are any letters you would omit.
> 
> I believe, then, Share, that our correspondence could, quite conceivably, 
> taken place on FFL. And unless you give me evidence of a letter which 
> obviously was never intended for anyone but you to see, I will post our 
> correspondence.
> 
> Robin
>  
>  
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have been 
> > > under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical 
> > > hallucination.Â  Your ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that self 
> > > proclamation of his perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into the 
> > > PRESENT and is not IMO helpful in the present.Â  This is what I am 
> > > addressing, the present.Â  Though I recognize that I've made some 
> > > mistakes about all this and will probably do so again, I will continue to 
> > > address issues if I think it is helpful to do so. Â  Â Â  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: authfriend 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:01 PM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author 
> > > of CULT
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Â  
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > JS,
> > > 
> > > My name is Judy.
> > > 
> > > > I don't think that what Robin calls the mystical hallucination
> > > > of his UC could, from the POV of simple logic, give rise to 
> > > > intentions which you describe as the absolute best and purest.
> > > 
> > > I don't think the "POV of simple logic" (yours in particular)
> > > is adequate to address that highly unusual situation such as
> > > to be able to determine the nature of Robin's intentions. It's
> > > the wrong tool for the job. (And in this case, your contorted, spiteful 
> > > personal animus toward Robin, which drives you to 
> > > find his intentions less than good and pure no matter what,
> > > disqualifies you from having any useful insights into what was
> > > going on.)
> > > 
> >

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Share Long:
> 
> Would you please state your reasons why you refuse to explain why you will 
> not answer my question about the desirability of posting our personal 
> correspondence--correspondence which is no different from the kind of 
> interactions which take place here on FFL?
> 
> You keep referring to me by name as if I were someone either dead, or in 
> exile, or mute. You continue to discuss me, Share, and yet you will not let 
> me show the world exactly what was said between us in those letters.
> 
> In those letters we both attempted to understand each other. There was no 
> insinuation of any kind of problem such as to make you say much later that I 
> had violated you in some way. I find you innocently treacherous in all that 
> you write about me, and I believe that posting that correspondence will allow 
> everyone to understand what this matter is between you and myself.
> 
> I ask that you answer my request sincerely, Share (You must have some valid 
> reason for ignoring my question: please state it.). Until you do this I will 
> continue to interpret your allusions to myself as a deliberate and 
> provocative attempt to engage in a conversation which at one point I simply 
> deemed pointless--As the record will show, Share,  once I stopped writing to 
> you, you continued to write to me.
> 
> How about it, Share? Shall we put our cards out on the table?
> 
> Robin

Here is a letter I wrote to you on September 26, 2012. You might wish to look 
at your response to that letter. For you have emphatically contradicted 
yourself in how you acted subsequently to sending that letter to me.


Share,

I believe that the correspondence between you and myself should be posted on 
FFL. And I think I will do this.

If you have any objections to my doing this, you can state them, and I will 
consider them carefully before going ahead with this.

I feel what passed between us would be of considerable interest to those trying 
to understanding what is going on right now.

Especially after you reposted that post from Steve. That is what motivated me 
to go ahead and post our correspondence.

I have read through that correspondence; I do not believe--taking in all the 
letters--there is anything of a personal nature at all.

So, this is my intention. You can reread the correspondence yourself to see if 
there are any letters you would omit.

I believe, then, Share, that our correspondence could, quite conceivably, taken 
place on FFL. And unless you give me evidence of a letter which obviously was 
never intended for anyone but you to see, I will post our correspondence.

Robin
 
 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have been 
> > under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical 
> > hallucination.Â  Your ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that self 
> > proclamation of his perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT 
> > and is not IMO helpful in the present.Â  This is what I am addressing, the 
> > present.Â  Though I recognize that I've made some mistakes about all this 
> > and will probably do so again, I will continue to address issues if I think 
> > it is helpful to do so. Â  Â Â  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: authfriend 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:01 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of 
> > CULT
> >  
> > 
> > Â  
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > JS,
> > 
> > My name is Judy.
> > 
> > > I don't think that what Robin calls the mystical hallucination
> > > of his UC could, from the POV of simple logic, give rise to 
> > > intentions which you describe as the absolute best and purest.
> > 
> > I don't think the "POV of simple logic" (yours in particular)
> > is adequate to address that highly unusual situation such as
> > to be able to determine the nature of Robin's intentions. It's
> > the wrong tool for the job. (And in this case, your contorted, spiteful 
> > personal animus toward Robin, which drives you to 
> > find his intentions less than good and pure no matter what,
> > disqualifies you from having any useful insights into what was
> > going on.)
> > 
> > > Logic indicates simply that the intentions at their very
> > > inception were based in hallucination. I think calling them, 
> > > especially in hindsight, the absolute best and purest
> > > continues the hallucination in a small but significant
> > > amount.Â Significant because that small amount exists in the
> > > very core of the larger matter. Thus is useful IMO to be
> > > named.
> > 
> > I would not expect you to see things any differently, Share.
> > Your propensity to rewrite reality to suit your own needs
> > will not permit you to acquire a more subtle understanding
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: La Boheme snapshots



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> 
> This is why Pavarotti is so celebrated and why Puccini's La Boheme
> is so famous.
> 
> Here he performs with the heart-touching Fiamma Izzo d'Amico as
> Mimi:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkHGUaB1Bs8
> 
> 
> More:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzPW8mXX3bg&feature=endscreen&NR=1
> 
> 
> With the quartet aria:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZGDmpduIHE
> 
> 
> And the tragic ending:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuJFTJCUtpY
> 
> 
> 
>   

One of my favorites-La Traviata with Placido Domingo and Teresa Stratas 
directed by Zeffirelli, (Though Pavarotti was one of a kind, truly exceptional):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcKdnkGBSgA

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

Share Long:

Would you please state your reasons why you refuse to explain why you will not 
answer my question about the desirability of posting our personal 
correspondence--correspondence which is no different from the kind of 
interactions which take place here on FFL?

You keep referring to me by name as if I were someone either dead, or in exile, 
or mute. You continue to discuss me, Share, and yet you will not let me show 
the world exactly what was said between us in those letters.

In those letters we both attempted to understand each other. There was no 
insinuation of any kind of problem such as to make you say much later that I 
had violated you in some way. I find you innocently treacherous in all that you 
write about me, and I believe that posting that correspondence will allow 
everyone to understand what this matter is between you and myself.

I ask that you answer my request sincerely, Share (You must have some valid 
reason for ignoring my question: please state it.). Until you do this I will 
continue to interpret your allusions to myself as a deliberate and provocative 
attempt to engage in a conversation which at one point I simply deemed 
pointless--As the record will show, Share,  once I stopped writing to you, you 
continued to write to me.

How about it, Share? Shall we put our cards out on the table?

Robin



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have been under 
> the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical hallucination.Â  Your 
> ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that self proclamation of his 
> perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT and is not IMO 
> helpful in the present.Â  This is what I am addressing, the present.Â  Though 
> I recognize that I've made some mistakes about all this and will probably do 
> so again, I will continue to address issues if I think it is helpful to do 
> so. Â  Â Â  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: authfriend 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:01 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of 
> CULT
>  
> 
> Â  
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > JS,
> 
> My name is Judy.
> 
> > I don't think that what Robin calls the mystical hallucination
> > of his UC could, from the POV of simple logic, give rise to 
> > intentions which you describe as the absolute best and purest.
> 
> I don't think the "POV of simple logic" (yours in particular)
> is adequate to address that highly unusual situation such as
> to be able to determine the nature of Robin's intentions. It's
> the wrong tool for the job. (And in this case, your contorted, spiteful 
> personal animus toward Robin, which drives you to 
> find his intentions less than good and pure no matter what,
> disqualifies you from having any useful insights into what was
> going on.)
> 
> > Logic indicates simply that the intentions at their very
> > inception were based in hallucination. I think calling them, 
> > especially in hindsight, the absolute best and purest
> > continues the hallucination in a small but significant
> > amount.Â Significant because that small amount exists in the
> > very core of the larger matter. Thus is useful IMO to be
> > named.
> 
> I would not expect you to see things any differently, Share.
> Your propensity to rewrite reality to suit your own needs
> will not permit you to acquire a more subtle understanding
> of the complex metaphysics of what took place with Robin and
> his group.
> 
> > Yes, the whole situation became confusing, agonizing and
> > eventually poignant. Even more reason to immediately name
> > the hallucination or delusion or pragyaparadh when it
> > appears so that unnecessary suffering can be avoided.
> 
> And what is it that will do this "naming" for us, Share?
> 
> Careful...
> 
> > PSÂ  And yes again, I thought I was communicating with you and
> > Ann in my posts about Edwin Coppard's ideas.Â  If you thought
> > I wasn't, how would you change what I wrote to make it fall
> > within your category of communicating?
> 
> Not playing that game with you, Share. I asked a question, you 
> answered it. I did not express an opinion.
> 
> >  From: authfriend 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:40 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of 
> > CULT
> > 
> > 
> > ÃÂ  
> > Couple of comments below, Robin.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Bill,
> > 
> > snip
> > 
> > > Now since my enlightenment was a mystical hallucination, it
> > > meant that *the context which it gave birth to inside myself*,
> > > that too somewhere, no matter how true the process of
> > > confrontation and individuation appeared to be (and that
> > > process recreated reality, drove everyone into the deepest
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto

2012-12-07 Thread Xenophaneros Anartaxius

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

> I'll have more to say this evening about Barry's hysterical meltdown, but in 
> the meantime, here's a post I made back in 2007 after Barry had brought this 
> up again. The Maya expert in the Salon article I quoted was, um, not exactly 
> the only knowledgeable person to have been upset by the movie:

> A few selections from articles discussing the historical inaccuracies in 
> "Apocalypto"...

Barry is just doing what he always does, so why is this an 'hysterical 
meltdown'?

As for Apocalypto, a rather brutal film, it's fiction. Even documentary films 
have very selective viewpoints, are assembled from secondary material, like old 
film prints (of which the original negative would be the most primary source), 
recollections, etc., so such a film has many elements of fiction, a retelling 
of a tale. The original event, say World War II, is long gone, it happened 
once, and fragmented memories of the event in the minds of people, and the 
shards of physical remains, military reports, news accounts, films, photos, are 
reassembled in what one thinks is a likeness of the event. For example the 
current film 'Lincoln' is not what happened, it is a representation of what 
happened and historically, if one looks at details, it has a skewed viewpoint 
compared with a consensus view (also skewed) of 'what happened'.

I recall the end of 'Apocalypto' and if I make an interpretation of it, it is 
just as skewed as the film is skewed in relation to any original event 
concerning the Maya. To put it simply my fictional account of the finale of the 
film is this:

* The Mayan family hides in the forest as the Spaniards come.

Now to this I can layer on additional interpretations from my own mind, based 
on rather poor memories of reading history books and from school. I can then 
project that the Mayan civilisation will fall, that the Spaniards are bringing 
the true Catholic faith to these poor savages because I remember that Spain was 
Catholic, and Gibson is Catholic. But I have never been to Spain, let alone in 
the 16th century. I have never met Mel Gibson. My 'knowledge' of Gibson rests 
entirely on non-primary sources, does not rest on any actual experience of the 
purported existence of Gibson. I watched 'Apocalypto' on a DVD. If I had to, 
say, prove anything on the basis of direct experience about that DVD, where it 
came from, how it came to be, and how it related to an actual world, it would 
be an impossible task. Only if I were very general, and adopted what I would 
term a conventional viewpoint about reality would this even be thinkable, and 
the result would be entirely derivative, would be just as much a fiction as 
what I was investigating.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto

2012-12-07 Thread Alex Stanley



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > I'll have more to say this evening about Barry's
> > hysterical meltdown, but in the meantime, here's a
> > post I made back in 2007 after Barry had brought
> > this up again. The Maya expert in the Salon
> > article I quoted was, um, not exactly the only
> > knowledgeable person to have been upset by the
> > movie:
> 
> Please note that the only hysterical person here is 
> the Judester herself, which she will hopefully 
> demonstrate for us all later tonight. :-) 
> 
> Please also note that she has said NOT A WORD about 
> the real issues at play here. 
> 
> That is, it's NOT ABOUT whether the movie was 
> historically inaccurate. No one has suggested 
> that it was. Any attempt to get people to focus
> on that is a diversion from the real issues.
> 
> What those issues are -- the ones that Judy will 
> continue to avoid dealing with -- revolve around:
> 
> 1. Why did she feel competent to comment on a film she 
> had never seen, and obviously has *still* never seen?
> 
> 2. Why did she choose to characterize Mel Gibson as a
> "Christian bigot" (again, based on a film she'd never
> seen), when the article she was originally taking as
> gospel did not mention a word about Christianity?
> 
> Please note also that not a single one of the "sources"
> she cites below say anything about Christian supremicist 
> themes in the movie, either. 
> 
> JUDY MADE THAT UP.
> ABOUT A MOVIE SHE HAD NEVER SEEN.
> SHE'S STILL SAYING IT, SIX YEARS LATER.
> ABOUT A MOVIE SHE'S *STILL* NEVER SEEN.
> RATHER THAN ADMITTING THIS,
> SHE'S GOING TO DOUBLE DOWN.
> SHE'S A NUTCASE.
> 
> :-)
> 

So, it's all about Judy.

> 
> > A few selections from articles discussing
> > the historical inaccuracies in "Apocalypto"
> > 
> > From the San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/6/06:
> > 
> > 'Apocalypto' a pack of inaccuracies
> > 
> > Maya experts say Gibson's violent film wrong historically
> > 
> > By Mark McGuire
> > NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
> > 
> > December 12, 2006
> > 
> > Mel Gibson's historical drama "Apocalypto" certainly has a veneer of
> > authenticity. If you have to scramble to remember your fifth-grade
> > lessons on Maya culture, you'd certainly believe you're watching an
> > accurate, detail-rich depiction of Mesoamerican life.
> > 
> > "A lot of people will think this is how it was," said Walter Little,
> > an anthropologist and expert on Maya language and culture at the
> > State University of New York at Albany. "Unfortunately."
> > 
> > Little and two other Mesoamerican scholars at the Albany campus
> > recently screened the big-budget, subtitled epic, which opened Friday
> > and was last weekend's No. 1 movie, grossing $14.2 million.
> > 
> > All three said they were disappointed by the plot and taken aback by
> > the graphic violence, which to these eyes suggested "Braveheart" as
> > directed by Quentin Tarantino in a particularly vile mood.
> > 
> > But even if they could sponge away the blood, these experts found the
> > devil  or at least a set of thumbs-down reviews  in the details.
> > 
> > "This was not a film about the Mayas," said Robert Carmack, a retired
> > anthropology professor from SUNY Albany's lauded Mesoamerican
> > program. "It's a big mistake  almost a tragedy  that they present
> > this as a Maya film."
> > 
> > In any genre film, experts and geeks alike will pore over the
> > minutiae. In their estimation, a movie rises or falls on the little
> > things.
> > 
> > Seafaring experts debate the minor gaffes of "Titanic," while experts
> > on ancient Rome talk about minor historical imperfections
> > in "Gladiator."
> > 
> > Most moviegoers won't catch these mistakes or willful fact-
> > doctorings. Does it matter to the average ticket holder that Gibson
> > apparently fudged some facts? Not really, especially if you're just
> > looking for a period adventure featuring, by my unofficial count, 12
> > wildly different modes of killing.
> > 
> > There are no guns, but lots of lethal weapons. To those in the know,
> > however, the flaws stick out like Roseanne Barr in a Broadway musical.
> > 
> > Take the film's depiction of a major Maya city that serves as the
> > setting for much of the film's third act. Many of the architectural
> > details are correct, but they're cobbled together from different
> > locations (including ancient cities in Guatemala and the Yucatan) and
> > different eras, the experts said.
> > 
> > So what, you say? Try picturing 16th-century explorer Giovanni da
> > Verrazano navigating the east coast of the New World, and then ending
> > his journey by traversing the New York City suspension bridge that
> > bears his name.
> > 
> > You get the idea.
> > 
> > The experts said they thought, during much of the movie, it was set
> > sometime between A.D. 300 and 900  until a closing scene places it
> > closer to the early 1500s.
> > 
> > "It was a postmodern

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto

As my great grandmother Ada (that everyone who knew here referred to as Miss 
Ader) would have said, "Lord-A-Mercy! You should-a kept your mouth shut, boy!" 
meaning me, I should a kep my mouth shut!





 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 10:55 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> I'll have more to say this evening about Barry's
> hysterical meltdown, but in the meantime, here's a
> post I made back in 2007 after Barry had brought
> this up again. The Maya expert in the Salon
> article I quoted was, um, not exactly the only
> knowledgeable person to have been upset by the
> movie:

Please note that the only hysterical person here is 
the Judester herself, which she will hopefully 
demonstrate for us all later tonight. :-) 

Please also note that she has said NOT A WORD about 
the real issues at play here. 

That is, it's NOT ABOUT whether the movie was 
historically inaccurate. No one has suggested 
that it was. Any attempt to get people to focus
on that is a diversion from the real issues.

What those issues are -- the ones that Judy will 
continue to avoid dealing with -- revolve around:

1. Why did she feel competent to comment on a film she 
had never seen, and obviously has *still* never seen?

2. Why did she choose to characterize Mel Gibson as a
"Christian bigot" (again, based on a film she'd never
seen), when the article she was originally taking as
gospel did not mention a word about Christianity?

Please note also that not a single one of the "sources"
she cites below say anything about Christian supremicist 
themes in the movie, either. 

JUDY MADE THAT UP.
ABOUT A MOVIE SHE HAD NEVER SEEN.
SHE'S STILL SAYING IT, SIX YEARS LATER.
ABOUT A MOVIE SHE'S *STILL* NEVER SEEN.
RATHER THAN ADMITTING THIS,
SHE'S GOING TO DOUBLE DOWN.
SHE'S A NUTCASE.

:-)

> A few selections from articles discussing
> the historical inaccuracies in "Apocalypto"
> 
> From the San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/6/06:
> 
> 'Apocalypto' a pack of inaccuracies
> 
> Maya experts say Gibson's violent film wrong historically
> 
> By Mark McGuire
> NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
> 
> December 12, 2006
> 
> Mel Gibson's historical drama "Apocalypto" certainly has a veneer of
> authenticity. If you have to scramble to remember your fifth-grade
> lessons on Maya culture, you'd certainly believe you're watching an
> accurate, detail-rich depiction of Mesoamerican life.
> 
> "A lot of people will think this is how it was," said Walter Little,
> an anthropologist and expert on Maya language and culture at the
> State University of New York at Albany. "Unfortunately."
> 
> Little and two other Mesoamerican scholars at the Albany campus
> recently screened the big-budget, subtitled epic, which opened Friday
> and was last weekend's No. 1 movie, grossing $14.2 million.
> 
> All three said they were disappointed by the plot and taken aback by
> the graphic violence, which to these eyes suggested "Braveheart" as
> directed by Quentin Tarantino in a particularly vile mood.
> 
> But even if they could sponge away the blood, these experts found the
> devil – or at least a set of thumbs-down reviews – in the details.
> 
> "This was not a film about the Mayas," said Robert Carmack, a retired
> anthropology professor from SUNY Albany's lauded Mesoamerican
> program. "It's a big mistake – almost a tragedy – that they present
> this as a Maya film."
> 
> In any genre film, experts and geeks alike will pore over the
> minutiae. In their estimation, a movie rises or falls on the little
> things.
> 
> Seafaring experts debate the minor gaffes of "Titanic," while experts
> on ancient Rome talk about minor historical imperfections
> in "Gladiator."
> 
> Most moviegoers won't catch these mistakes or willful fact-
> doctorings. Does it matter to the average ticket holder that Gibson
> apparently fudged some facts? Not really, especially if you're just
> looking for a period adventure featuring, by my unofficial count, 12
> wildly different modes of killing.
> 
> There are no guns, but lots of lethal weapons. To those in the know,
> however, the flaws stick out like Roseanne Barr in a Broadway musical.
> 
> Take the film's depiction of a major Maya city that serves as the
> setting for much of the film's third act. Many of the architectural
> details are correct, but they're cobbled together from different
> locations (including ancient cities in Guatemala and the Yucatan) and
> different eras, the experts said.
> 
> So what, you say? Try picturing 16th-century explorer Giovanni da
> Verrazano navigating the east coast of the New World, and then ending
> his journey by traversing the New York City suspension bridge that
> bears his name.
> 
> You get the idea.
> 
> The experts said they thought, during much of the movie, it was set
> sometime between A.D. 300 and 900 – until a closing

[FairfieldLife] Re: More Opera 12.04.12 to feste and emptyB

Just for fun, given Judy's claim of being offended by
anything less than total historical accuracy...  :-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
>
> And with regard to the "Mad Scene" woman emptybill was talking
> about, she murders her bridegroom because she's been forced by
> her brother to marry him rather than the man she loves, and
> she has gone insane with grief.
>
> Real tricky on the woman's part, huh?
>
> There's more: Her brother has arranged the marriage for
> political reasons, to secure his own power; and the two
> thwarted lovers have been led to believe each has betrayed the
> other. When the woman's lover learns that she has died, he
> kills himself.
>
> The opera is based on real events that took place in 17th
> century Scotland.

First, this is inaccurate. The opera is based on Sir Walter
Scott's novel "The Bride of Lammermoor." Scott at one
point *claimed* that it was based on historical fact, but
that seems not to have been true. From Wikipedia:

The next five years of Stair's [Sir James Dalrymple's] life were
comparatively uneventful, but  in 1669 a family calamity, the
exact facts of which will probably never  be ascertained,
overtook him. His daughter Janet, who had been betrothed  to
Lord Rutherfurd, was married to Dunbar of Baldoon, and some
tragic  incident occurred on the wedding night, from the effects
of which she  never recovered. As the traditions vary on the central
fact, whether it  was the bride who stabbed her husband, or the
husband who stabbed the  bride, no credence can be given to the
mass of superstitions and  spiteful slander
  which surrounded it,
principally leveled at Lady Stair. Sir Walter Scott
  took the plot
of his Bride of Lammermoor
  from this incident,
but he
disclaimed any intention of making Lord Stair the basis for
Sir William Ashton.

Second, now that Judy's description of the opera as
being based on "real events" has been shown to be...
uh...less than factual, can we expect her anytime soon
to rag on it? That's what she did for the movie she never
bothered to see when she found out that it was less than
100% historically accurate, after all.  :-)

Will she post a nasty putdown of the opera, claiming
that either Sir Walter Scott or Gaetano Donizetti were
"Christian bigots" trying to misrepresent true history?

Only time will tell...

:-)   :-)   :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: More Opera 12.04.12

"Anyone actually watch it?"

Stop begging empty baby - this habit of yours is highly irritating - OK? I
am not going to watch it.

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 9:46 PM, emptybill  wrote:

> **
>
>
> Wonderful performances everyone.
>
> What brilliant addendums to the vocal
> ornamentations of Donizetti's Lucia.
>
> You all are of the highest literary amplitude
> by recreating the mad scene right here on FFL.
>
> And by the way. Remember that video the Judy
> was praising?
>
> Anyone actually watch it?
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
> >
> > Wonderful performances.
> >
> > That mad scene should be a snap-shot for men
> > thinking these divas would be simple to deal with
> > by a fool - a snap-shot of their own bloody corpse
> > that is.
> >
> > Feste, be warned. They wouldn't just cut your
> > heart out but also put a grenade under your
> > body to greet anyone rolling you over.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Three Netrebko videos...
> > >
> > > "Quando m'en vo" ("Musetta's Waltz") from Puccini's La Boheme
> > > (Not such a great aria for a concert performance; you really
> > > need the staging for it to come across, but she sings it
> > > nicely.)
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWnWivspwRE
> > >
> > >
> > > "Sempre libera" from Verdi's Traviata
> > > (From the new Met modern-dress production--a rather outre
> > interpretation of Violetta, but it shows off her acting
> > > ability.)
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFJJ1zFBWgY&feature=endscreen&NR=1
> > >
> > >
> > > "Mad Scene" from Donizetti's Lucia di Lammermoor
> > > (Lucia has just killed her bridegroom. A conventional
> > > production, but the staging of this scene is excellent,
> > > and her performance is blood-chilling. It's a long
> > > scene, over 10 minutes.)
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX2r8ps9pUg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hah! Yeah … she's like napalm.
> > > >
> > > > But image living with someone with such talent and charisma.
> > > >
> > > > Might easily end up like the performance by Dmitri Hvorostovsky
> and
> > > > Renee Fleming in post #328213.
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hotter than hot! There definitely was some cleavage, btw. You
> must
> > > > have nodded off before they got it, you poor old bastard.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh yeah?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here is an Anna Netrebko interview where she shows no cleavage
> > but
> > > > ...
> > > > > > it also is "so hot".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No wonder that video with Dmitri stopped before their actual
> > kiss.
> > > > But
> > > > > > it was on the other video that I saw ... And the audience
> loved
> > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=UgpVoMPGbUA
> > > > > >
> > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" 
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nice, but not enough cleavage, which is an essential part of
> a
> > > > female
> > > > > > opera singerâ€™s repertoire, donâ€™t you think? In
> > this
> > > > > > regard, the divine Cecilia does not disappoint in the
> following
> > > > clip,
> > > > > > especially given the tantalizing possibility of a wardrobe
> > > > malfunction,
> > > > > > which unfortunately not quite happen (but watch the shoulder
> > strap):
> > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaKX21earkk (Oh, yes, the
> aria
> > is
> > > > good
> > > > > > too.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My favorite Cecilia is this:
> > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2IeGgk_06I
> > > > > > > Itâ€™s an aria from a Vivaldi opera and she uses it as
> an
> > > > encore.
> > > > > > Itâ€™s breathtaking, sensational. I defy anyone to keep
> > still
> > > > while
> > > > > > they watch it. Itâ€™s Baroque rock. And just look at her
> > face
> > > > when
> > > > > > she is finished.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cecilia is the sort of voluptuous Italian woman that men
> would
> > > > love to
> > > > > > have in the kitchen and bedroom. She might be a bit of a
> handful
> > > > though.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Elina G made a great Sesto in the live Met telecast of
> > Clemenza di
> > > > > > Tito at the weekend. She is so hot.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Two of the best mezzo-sopranos, Elina Garanca and Anna
> > Netrebko,
> > > > > > sing
> > > > > > > > the famous Flower duet (Lakmï¿½ Delibes). Doesn't hurt
> > that
> > > > > > > > they're both as b

[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> I'll have more to say this evening about Barry's
> hysterical meltdown, but in the meantime, here's a
> post I made back in 2007 after Barry had brought
> this up again. The Maya expert in the Salon
> article I quoted was, um, not exactly the only
> knowledgeable person to have been upset by the
> movie:

Please note that the only hysterical person here is 
the Judester herself, which she will hopefully 
demonstrate for us all later tonight. :-) 

Please also note that she has said NOT A WORD about 
the real issues at play here. 

That is, it's NOT ABOUT whether the movie was 
historically inaccurate. No one has suggested 
that it was. Any attempt to get people to focus
on that is a diversion from the real issues.

What those issues are -- the ones that Judy will 
continue to avoid dealing with -- revolve around:

1. Why did she feel competent to comment on a film she 
had never seen, and obviously has *still* never seen?

2. Why did she choose to characterize Mel Gibson as a
"Christian bigot" (again, based on a film she'd never
seen), when the article she was originally taking as
gospel did not mention a word about Christianity?

Please note also that not a single one of the "sources"
she cites below say anything about Christian supremicist 
themes in the movie, either. 

JUDY MADE THAT UP.
ABOUT A MOVIE SHE HAD NEVER SEEN.
SHE'S STILL SAYING IT, SIX YEARS LATER.
ABOUT A MOVIE SHE'S *STILL* NEVER SEEN.
RATHER THAN ADMITTING THIS,
SHE'S GOING TO DOUBLE DOWN.
SHE'S A NUTCASE.

:-)


> A few selections from articles discussing
> the historical inaccuracies in "Apocalypto"
> 
> From the San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/6/06:
> 
> 'Apocalypto' a pack of inaccuracies
> 
> Maya experts say Gibson's violent film wrong historically
> 
> By Mark McGuire
> NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
> 
> December 12, 2006
> 
> Mel Gibson's historical drama "Apocalypto" certainly has a veneer of
> authenticity. If you have to scramble to remember your fifth-grade
> lessons on Maya culture, you'd certainly believe you're watching an
> accurate, detail-rich depiction of Mesoamerican life.
> 
> "A lot of people will think this is how it was," said Walter Little,
> an anthropologist and expert on Maya language and culture at the
> State University of New York at Albany. "Unfortunately."
> 
> Little and two other Mesoamerican scholars at the Albany campus
> recently screened the big-budget, subtitled epic, which opened Friday
> and was last weekend's No. 1 movie, grossing $14.2 million.
> 
> All three said they were disappointed by the plot and taken aback by
> the graphic violence, which to these eyes suggested "Braveheart" as
> directed by Quentin Tarantino in a particularly vile mood.
> 
> But even if they could sponge away the blood, these experts found the
> devil  or at least a set of thumbs-down reviews  in the details.
> 
> "This was not a film about the Mayas," said Robert Carmack, a retired
> anthropology professor from SUNY Albany's lauded Mesoamerican
> program. "It's a big mistake  almost a tragedy  that they present
> this as a Maya film."
> 
> In any genre film, experts and geeks alike will pore over the
> minutiae. In their estimation, a movie rises or falls on the little
> things.
> 
> Seafaring experts debate the minor gaffes of "Titanic," while experts
> on ancient Rome talk about minor historical imperfections
> in "Gladiator."
> 
> Most moviegoers won't catch these mistakes or willful fact-
> doctorings. Does it matter to the average ticket holder that Gibson
> apparently fudged some facts? Not really, especially if you're just
> looking for a period adventure featuring, by my unofficial count, 12
> wildly different modes of killing.
> 
> There are no guns, but lots of lethal weapons. To those in the know,
> however, the flaws stick out like Roseanne Barr in a Broadway musical.
> 
> Take the film's depiction of a major Maya city that serves as the
> setting for much of the film's third act. Many of the architectural
> details are correct, but they're cobbled together from different
> locations (including ancient cities in Guatemala and the Yucatan) and
> different eras, the experts said.
> 
> So what, you say? Try picturing 16th-century explorer Giovanni da
> Verrazano navigating the east coast of the New World, and then ending
> his journey by traversing the New York City suspension bridge that
> bears his name.
> 
> You get the idea.
> 
> The experts said they thought, during much of the movie, it was set
> sometime between A.D. 300 and 900  until a closing scene places it
> closer to the early 1500s.
> 
> "It was a postmodern collage," Little said. "It was a hodgepodge."
> 
> Carmack grew more and more steamed in his post-screening analysis. In
> particular, he seethed over the portrayals of human sacrifices and
> other spectacles, which he said more closely resembled practices used
> by the Aztecs or even the ancient Romans.
> 
> The sadism that perme

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have been under 
the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical hallucination.  Your 
ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that self proclamation of his 
perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into the PRESENT and is not IMO helpful 
in the present.  This is what I am addressing, the present.  Though I recognize 
that I've made some mistakes about all this and will probably do so again, I 
will continue to address issues if I think it is helpful to do so.      

 From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:01 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of CULT

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> JS,

My name is Judy.

> I don't think that what Robin calls the mystical hallucination
> of his UC could, from the POV of simple logic, give rise to 
> intentions which you describe as the absolute best and purest.

I don't think the "POV of simple logic" (yours in particular)
is adequate to address that highly unusual situation such as
to be able to determine the nature of Robin's intentions. It's
the wrong tool for the job. (And in this case, your contorted, spiteful 
personal animus toward Robin, which drives you to 
find his intentions less than good and pure no matter what,
disqualifies you from having any useful insights into what was
going on.)

> Logic indicates simply that the intentions at their very
> inception were based in hallucination. I think calling them, 
> especially in hindsight, the absolute best and purest
> continues the hallucination in a small but significant
> amount. Significant because that small amount exists in the
> very core of the larger matter. Thus is useful IMO to be
> named.

I would not expect you to see things any differently, Share.
Your propensity to rewrite reality to suit your own needs
will not permit you to acquire a more subtle understanding
of the complex metaphysics of what took place with Robin and
his group.

> Yes, the whole situation became confusing, agonizing and
> eventually poignant. Even more reason to immediately name
> the hallucination or delusion or pragyaparadh when it
> appears so that unnecessary suffering can be avoided.

And what is it that will do this "naming" for us, Share?

Careful...

> PS  And yes again, I thought I was communicating with you and
> Ann in my posts about Edwin Coppard's ideas.  If you thought
> I wasn't, how would you change what I wrote to make it fall
> within your category of communicating?

Not playing that game with you, Share. I asked a question, you 
answered it. I did not express an opinion.

>  From: authfriend 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:40 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of 
> CULT
> 
> 
> Â  
> Couple of comments below, Robin.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Bill,
> 
> snip
> 
> > Now since my enlightenment was a mystical hallucination, it
> > meant that *the context which it gave birth to inside myself*,
> > that too somewhere, no matter how true the process of
> > confrontation and individuation appeared to be (and that
> > process recreated reality, drove everyone into the deepest
> > place one could ever go--and had ever gone), was untrue. **And
> > what this meant--in the perspective after The Context was
> > busted by a greater reality--was that this weakness in each
> > person was simply what innocently each person had to do in
> > order to survive as a human being inside the universe given
> > that they were not perfect--and fallen. In other words, this 
> > salient and ultimate weakness was not to be confronted--not
> > even to be revealed.**
> 
> snip
> 
> JS: I don't think you've ever put it quite this way.
> 
> I wasn't there, of course, but the more you tell us about
> all this, the more poignant it seems--the hope, the
> exhilaration, the absolute best and purest of intentions
> driving it, the huge effort and energy expended, and then
> the wrenching agony of confusion when it began to self-
> destruct.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra

MJ, obviously he caught both of us. Guilty conscience, I guess!

I was completely unaware that you were making a response at the same time that 
I was. It's interesting to compare the two responses...there's a whole lotta' 
truth buried in what both of us have written.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> Shoot, I thought he meant me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: laughinggull108 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 9:56 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra
>  
> 
> Â  
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > > Anyway, the bottom line is that hardly anybody pays much
> > > > > > attention to Barry these days except to make fun of him.
> > > > > > 
> > 
> > But Judy, isn't it nice that the Turqo now has a new fan here ? Since 
> > Curtis and Vaj are not posting here these days nobody cares about his 
> > slanders, lies, unstressing and self-promotion anymore. 
> > Must be a relief that a new wacko finally arrives who admires him :-)
> >
> 
> I could be wrong, but I'm assuming, nablusoss, that you are referring to me. 
> While not necessarily a "fan", I tend to find something to appreciate and 
> possibly acknowledge from postings of most of the members of this forum. In 
> this case, I can appreciate Barry's artistic insights into the movie 
> Apocalypto rather than what he's got going with Judy...I thought I made that 
> clear in my last sentence. I appreciated your posting a link a week or so ago 
> with regard to Maharishi talking about Love and God:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgzX2dtdeGE
> I've also appreciated RD's latest post of her granddaughter's gymnastics 
> accomplishments, a few of Ravi's posts when they come from his heart, Robin's 
> posts when they are simple enough for me to understand, etc. While not a 
> "fan" of any of these people, I can only say that I find some good in some of 
> what they offer. Rather than being a "fan" of someone, I'm a respecter of 
> someone if he/she has earned that respect (and sometimes, even if he/she 
> hasn't because what he/she writes comes from a painful place).
> 
> Nablusosss, what you have just tried to do here is to get something negative 
> started here on FFL, and that must come from a dark place still inside of 
> you...very dark indeed. I don't respect that. And it will be very telling 
> from the responses, if any, that you get.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto

I'll have more to say this evening about Barry's
hysterical meltdown, but in the meantime, here's a
post I made back in 2007 after Barry had brought
this up again. The Maya expert in the Salon
article I quoted was, um, not exactly the only
knowledgeable person to have been upset by the
movie:


A few selections from articles discussing
the historical inaccuracies in "Apocalypto"

>From the San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/6/06:

'Apocalypto' a pack of inaccuracies

Maya experts say Gibson's violent film wrong historically

By Mark McGuire
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

December 12, 2006

Mel Gibson's historical drama "Apocalypto" certainly has a veneer of
authenticity. If you have to scramble to remember your fifth-grade
lessons on Maya culture, you'd certainly believe you're watching an
accurate, detail-rich depiction of Mesoamerican life.

"A lot of people will think this is how it was," said Walter Little,
an anthropologist and expert on Maya language and culture at the
State University of New York at Albany. "Unfortunately."

Little and two other Mesoamerican scholars at the Albany campus
recently screened the big-budget, subtitled epic, which opened Friday
and was last weekend's No. 1 movie, grossing $14.2 million.

All three said they were disappointed by the plot and taken aback by
the graphic violence, which to these eyes suggested "Braveheart" as
directed by Quentin Tarantino in a particularly vile mood.

But even if they could sponge away the blood, these experts found the
devil  or at least a set of thumbs-down reviews  in the details.

"This was not a film about the Mayas," said Robert Carmack, a retired
anthropology professor from SUNY Albany's lauded Mesoamerican
program. "It's a big mistake  almost a tragedy  that they present
this as a Maya film."

In any genre film, experts and geeks alike will pore over the
minutiae. In their estimation, a movie rises or falls on the little
things.

Seafaring experts debate the minor gaffes of "Titanic," while experts
on ancient Rome talk about minor historical imperfections
in "Gladiator."

Most moviegoers won't catch these mistakes or willful fact-
doctorings. Does it matter to the average ticket holder that Gibson
apparently fudged some facts? Not really, especially if you're just
looking for a period adventure featuring, by my unofficial count, 12
wildly different modes of killing.

There are no guns, but lots of lethal weapons. To those in the know,
however, the flaws stick out like Roseanne Barr in a Broadway musical.

Take the film's depiction of a major Maya city that serves as the
setting for much of the film's third act. Many of the architectural
details are correct, but they're cobbled together from different
locations (including ancient cities in Guatemala and the Yucatan) and
different eras, the experts said.

So what, you say? Try picturing 16th-century explorer Giovanni da
Verrazano navigating the east coast of the New World, and then ending
his journey by traversing the New York City suspension bridge that
bears his name.

You get the idea.

The experts said they thought, during much of the movie, it was set
sometime between A.D. 300 and 900  until a closing scene places it
closer to the early 1500s.

"It was a postmodern collage," Little said. "It was a hodgepodge."

Carmack grew more and more steamed in his post-screening analysis. In
particular, he seethed over the portrayals of human sacrifices and
other spectacles, which he said more closely resembled practices used
by the Aztecs or even the ancient Romans.

The sadism that permeates the movie was simply not part of the
culture, the experts said. Yes, the Mayas practiced human sacrifice,
but in ways that were highly ritualized and usually involved a single
victim. Not pretty, to be sure, but a far cry from the slaughterhouse
of mass sacrifice depicted in "Apocalypto"  a virtual conga line of
the soon-to-be headless, followed by desecration of their bodies.

The body count was high, and the treatment of the dead cavalier, all
three anthropologists said.

The Mayas, an agricultural society, also would not have had an open
field of rotting corpses situated near their crops.

Modern-day descendants of the Mayas "would be totally disgusted by
this film," Carmack said. "It was all invented. The ritual was a
disgusting perversion of human sacrifices among the Mayas."

Edgar Martin del Campo, a newly arrived faculty member who begins
teaching at SUNY Albany in January, talked about religious glitches
and other flaws. Examples: Mayas would not have been awed by an
eclipse as they were in the film  they were, in fact, early
astronomers. Villagers would not have been dumbstruck by a city; most
lived in or around metropolises. The costumes were contrived.

Give the film this, the scholars said: Gibson was brave enough to
make the movie in the Yucatec language. But just as the use of
Yucatec isn't exactly a guarantee of boffo box office, the historical
inaccuracies of Gibson's latest will zoom rig

[FairfieldLife] New Video: Black & Gold Women

2012-12-07 Thread raunchydog

Juliette learned to toss popcorn into air and catch it in her mouth at an 
institution of higher learning. Her gymnastics coach, Jeff Ide, took kids to 
see the Black & Gold meet kick off the opening gymnastics season at University 
of Iowa. http://youtu.be/IVMuexyycgM

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra

2012-12-07 Thread Richard J. Williams



mjackson74:
> again I profess ignorance - I am not familiar with Rama 
> nor Barry's association with him...
> 
So, let's just say you and Barry positioned yourselves
to be in a cult recruitment program. It's all about
positioning and placement. Go figure.

"The more you give, the more people we can help," Lenz 
says piously on a tape. "It's that simple."

http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Rama/wired

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra

Shoot, I thought he meant me!

 From: laughinggull108 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 9:56 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > Anyway, the bottom line is that hardly anybody pays much
> > > > > attention to Barry these days except to make fun of him.
> > > > > 
> 
> But Judy, isn't it nice that the Turqo now has a new fan here ? Since Curtis 
> and Vaj are not posting here these days nobody cares about his slanders, 
> lies, unstressing and self-promotion anymore. 
> Must be a relief that a new wacko finally arrives who admires him :-)
>

I could be wrong, but I'm assuming, nablusoss, that you are referring to me. 
While not necessarily a "fan", I tend to find something to appreciate and 
possibly acknowledge from postings of most of the members of this forum. In 
this case, I can appreciate Barry's artistic insights into the movie Apocalypto 
rather than what he's got going with Judy...I thought I made that clear in my 
last sentence. I appreciated your posting a link a week or so ago with regard 
to Maharishi talking about Love and God:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgzX2dtdeGE
I've also appreciated RD's latest post of her granddaughter's gymnastics 
accomplishments, a few of Ravi's posts when they come from his heart, Robin's 
posts when they are simple enough for me to understand, etc. While not a "fan" 
of any of these people, I can only say that I find some good in some of what 
they offer. Rather than being a "fan" of someone, I'm a respecter of someone if 
he/she has earned that respect (and sometimes, even if he/she hasn't because 
what he/she writes comes from a painful place).

Nablusosss, what you have just tried to do here is to get something negative 
started here on FFL, and that must come from a dark place still inside of 
you...very dark indeed. I don't respect that. And it will be very telling from 
the responses, if any, that you get.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > Anyway, the bottom line is that hardly anybody pays much
> > > > > attention to Barry these days except to make fun of him.
> > > > > 
> 
> But Judy, isn't it nice that the Turqo now has a new fan here ? Since Curtis 
> and Vaj are not posting here these days nobody cares about his slanders, 
> lies, unstressing and self-promotion anymore. 
> Must be a relief that a new wacko finally arrives who admires him :-)
>

I could be wrong, but I'm assuming, nablusoss, that you are referring to me. 
While not necessarily a "fan", I tend to find something to appreciate and 
possibly acknowledge from postings of most of the members of this forum. In 
this case, I can appreciate Barry's artistic insights into the movie Apocalypto 
rather than what he's got going with Judy...I thought I made that clear in my 
last sentence. I appreciated your posting a link a week or so ago with regard 
to Maharishi talking about Love and God:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgzX2dtdeGE
I've also appreciated RD's latest post of her granddaughter's gymnastics 
accomplishments, a few of Ravi's posts when they come from his heart, Robin's 
posts when they are simple enough for me to understand, etc. While not a "fan" 
of any of these people, I can only say that I find some good in some of what 
they offer. Rather than being a "fan" of someone, I'm a respecter of someone if 
he/she has earned that respect (and sometimes, even if he/she hasn't because 
what he/she writes comes from a painful place).

Nablusosss, what you have just tried to do here is to get something negative 
started here on FFL, and that must come from a dark place still inside of 
you...very dark indeed. I don't respect that. And it will be very telling from 
the responses, if any, that you get.

[FairfieldLife] Announcing MERU Calendar of Programmes and Courses for 2013

2012-12-07 Thread merlin

https://www.mgcwp.org/ico/emailing/2013/2013-CALENDAR_ANNOUNCEMENT/2013-CALENDAR_ANNOUNCEMENT.html

Announcing MERU Calendar ofProgrammes and Courses for 2013
web page

Announcing MERU Calendar of
Programmes and Courses for 2013

Dear Maharishi’s Movement Family Members,

We are very happy to present the MERU Calendar of events for 2013. We have been
very happy to see an increasing participation from you in the programmes we
have offered here at MERU during the past year.

This year we have added even more courses and assemblies and look forward to
welcoming everyone. We have arranged an assembly in February to Celebrate
Kumbha Mela and the Inauguration of the Maharishi Smarak at Prayag, connecting
live from here with some of the events happening in India.

Some of the additional courses are the 16-lesson courses developed by the
Maharishi College of Perfect Health under Maharishi’s guidance.
These courses include:
* Maharishi Yoga Asanas
* Self-Pulse Reading for Good Health
* Diet, Digestion and Nutrition and
* Good Health through Prevention.
We have also included courses in
* Maharishi Gandharva Veda and
* Ayur-Vedic Cooking.
We also look forward to hosting a ‘conference for the young generation of
meditators and Sidhas’ in June. It will include introduction to the activities
of the movement worldwide and will also be a forum for young people to get
together and exchange ideas on how to participate and support the expansion of
the important projects such as the Maharishi Vedic Pandit project in India.
We will continue with our well-attended assemblies in spring, summer assembly
at Guru Purnima time, and during autumn the Navaratri and Deepavali assemblies.
We will also have our most successful courses such as the course to train to
become an expert in
* Training To Be an Expert in Bringing Consciousness-Based Education
Programmes to Your Nation
* the Vastu Coordinator Training course and the
* course on Maharishi Vedic Gardening and Agriculture.
We are delighted to again have courses based on Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam’s
discovery of Veda and Vedic Literature in Human Physiology utilizing the
electronic model of Vedic Physiology. A new course that we think will interest
all Governors working full time for the movement is a course to be trained as a
‘Maharishi Ayur-Veda Health Coach’.
The Maharishi Ayur-Veda Health Centre in St. Odilienberg is running smoothly
and we welcome you to take advantage of the treatments at your convenience.
We look forward to seeing you here at MERU often in the coming year.
Please continue to visit our website and we will continue to update with
courses and new events:
www.merucourses.com
Feel free to send us your feedback and let us know via email if there are
courses you would like to take: cour...@maharishi.net
Jai Guru Dev
Team MERU
Following are images of the Summary of the calendar.
Summary of the calendar is also available as a PDF (625 Kb)

web page
© 2012 Global Country of World Peace
https://www.mgcwp.org/ico/emailing/2013/2013-CALENDAR_ANNOUNCEMENT/2013-CALENDAR_ANNOUNCEMENT.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> >
> > its all rather confusing to me as I really didn't 
> > understand the incident re refered to - but it doesn't 
> > matter anyway - according to some here I don't really 
> > understand that much of anything - I am a confused 
> > Southerner
> 
> It's not that important, Michael, just an example
> of How Judy Thinks. She read a review of the film
> "Apocalypto" by someone who wrote disparagingly of
> it and so, NOT having seen the film itself, passed
> along the information in her normal way, as if it
> were definitive. The subject line of the post,
> calling Mel Gibson a "Christian bigot" for making
> the film THAT SHE HAD NEVER SEEN was all her idea, 
> NOT anything that was in the review she read.
> 
> She's STILL never seen the movie, but my bet is
> that she will STILL claim to "know" that it's an
> example of Mel Gibson's "Christian bigotry," and
> that she's RIGHT, damnit. She makes up the defamatory
> subject line of the post, and adds this at the end:
> 
> > To highlight what the writer tactfully leaves
> > implicit, Gibson has slandered the Maya and
> > mangled history for the purpose of exalting the
> > purported superiority of Christianity.
> 
> Judy doesn't NEED the actual experience of something
> to know all about it, you see. Same with Maharishi.
> Having meditated TM-style for decades, she made
> *one* feeble attempt to go see him, failed at that,
> and never felt the need to try to make another. But 
> she'll tell you *exactly* how to interpret and 
> understand every little thing that this guy she 
> never met said, and claim to be RIGHT about it. 
> 
> I just like bringing up the "Apocalypto" thing 
> because it's such Classic Judy -- making slander-
> ous statements about the director of a film she
> never bothered to see. 

I wonder, at times like this, if you will ever get over your compulsion to:

Comment on what Judy says or does
Get over your obsession to put down/undermine her (and others when you see the 
smallest opening)
Gag out the bone in your craw
Squeeze the pus out of that boil
Take the burr out of your underwear
Move on
Forgive
Change

For everyone's sake, especially yours, I hope it is soon.
> 
> > 
> >  From: authfriend 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 6:29 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra
> >  
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well each to his own I reckon - but a guy who watched Maha 
> > > > try to get an initiator to secretly carry a suitcase full 
> > > > of money across international borders is an interesting 
> > > > feller to listen to
> > > 
> > > I think you'll find that Judy doesn't agree with this, 
> > > and feels instead that someone who never met Maharishi, 
> > > never became a teacher, and in fact never cared about 
> > > either him or her own spiritual pursuits enough to put 
> > > herself in the same room with him
> > 
> > As Barry knows, I did go to considerable lengths to do
> > exactly that. Unfortunately, I couldn't do anything
> > about MMY's decision not to turn up in that room.
> > 
> > So there you are, there's an example of why you should
> > not take any of Barry's assertions as fact unless you
> > can verify them from another source. His assertion
> > above is not fact.
> > 
> > , such as...wait for 
> > > it...herself, is more authoritative and should be paid 
> > > more attention to than others who did all these things.  :-)
> > 
> > Nor is this.
> > 
> > > Then again, she still feels that her view of Mel Gibson's
> > > film "Apocalypto" is the most authoritative, too, and that
> > > her characterization of him as "Mel Gibson, Christian Bigot"
> > > is accurate, *never having seen the film*.  :-)
> > > 
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/126122
> > > 
> > > Follow the thread. It's very instructive as to who you are
> > > dealing with...
> > 
> > Ah, this is an excellent example of what I just said about
> > its being wise to have more than one source for one of 
> > Barry's assertions. In this case, fortunately, we have the
> > record in the archives. Barry doesn't expect you to
> > actually *read* the thread--hopes you don't, in fact--but
> > if you do, you'll get quite an education.
> > 
> > > > 
> > > >  From: authfriend 
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 3:46 PM
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Now that's the sort of thing that if I had said it would lead
> > > > > to all sorts of scurrilous accusations towards me on the part
> > > > >

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra

I assume you mean me - I do admire some of the things Barry has posted or 
perhaps its more like I agree with his thinking on some things - as to me, I 
ask God to bless each person on FFL, even the ones I don't agree with and in my 
ego self would brand ostriches who keep their heads well stuck in the sand so 
they don't see the rajas taking the donations all the way to the bank - 
Liberace cried all the way to the bank, the rajas I guess hum Rig Veda on their 
way there.

 From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 9:04 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > Anyway, the bottom line is that hardly anybody pays much
> > > > attention to Barry these days except to make fun of him.
> > > > 

But Judy, isn't it nice that the Turqo now has a new fan here ? Since Curtis 
and Vaj are not posting here these days nobody cares about his slanders, lies, 
unstressing and self-promotion anymore. 
Must be a relief that a new wacko finally arrives who admires him :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra

again I profess ignorance - I am not familiar with Rama nor Barry's association 
with him

 From: Richard J. Williams 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 9:14 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra

mjackson74: 
> I am curious however to know if that other teacher did 
> take the suitcase across borders? 
> 
> I think if it had been me, I would have done it and 
> taken out about a third for my efforts
>
It's all a matter of positionng - you positioned yourself 
close to MMY so you be a money courier; Barry positioned 
himslef close to MMY so he could be the MMY door-boy and
collect the donations. LoL!

Not sure why you and Barry would think meeting MMY in
person would make him understand the mechanics of
consciousness any better.

You must have been thnking that the closer you get to 
MMY, the easier to steal movement money. It's sort of 
like Barry and the Rama guy - and the more money Barry 
gave to Rama, the more times he could get to sit at 
Lenz's feet and learn how to get money from poor students 
for instant enlightenment. Go figure.

"The more you give, the more people we can help," Lenz 
says piously on a tape. "It's that simple."

http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Rama/wired

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra

Ah, I understand now - I must admit I never saw Gibby's last couple of films - 
I got a little burned out on him after watching him say he wanted Frank Rich's 
spleen on a stick and kill his dog in response to criticism of his Passion of 
Christ movie, plus I must admit I am not a fan of historically inaccurate 
films  - which means most films based on history I guess cuz most Hollywood 
directors don't let history get in the way of telling a story. 

Having said that, I did like Cinderella Man a lot, tho it was not accurate in 
some respects, and I did like Braveheart  - I bet I have seen it 10 times all 
told even tho it is very inaccurate in its portrayal of William Wallace. The 
Patriot however I despised - that may in part be because I was born and raised 
in South Carolina where every schoolkid is raised on (whitewashed) tales of 
Francis Marion, Swamp Fox. 

I understand any film makers using history as a backdrop for a story, but with 
something I am familiar with as Revolutionary War in South Carolina as I am, 
the real historical events and people are more interesting than the made up 
events - the same goes for Braveheart too but I did like the job he did on that 
one.

Anyhow, if Tom Cruise ever convinces Gibby to give up Ultra Right Wing 
Catholicism for Scientology, we might get some real shore nuff good 
performances from him.

 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 1:05 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> its all rather confusing to me as I really didn't 
> understand the incident re refered to - but it doesn't 
> matter anyway - according to some here I don't really 
> understand that much of anything - I am a confused 
> Southerner

It's not that important, Michael, just an example
of How Judy Thinks. She read a review of the film
"Apocalypto" by someone who wrote disparagingly of
it and so, NOT having seen the film itself, passed
along the information in her normal way, as if it
were definitive. The subject line of the post,
calling Mel Gibson a "Christian bigot" for making
the film THAT SHE HAD NEVER SEEN was all her idea, 
NOT anything that was in the review she read.

She's STILL never seen the movie, but my bet is
that she will STILL claim to "know" that it's an
example of Mel Gibson's "Christian bigotry," and
that she's RIGHT, damnit. She makes up the defamatory
subject line of the post, and adds this at the end:

> To highlight what the writer tactfully leaves
> implicit, Gibson has slandered the Maya and
> mangled history for the purpose of exalting the
> purported superiority of Christianity.

Judy doesn't NEED the actual experience of something
to know all about it, you see. Same with Maharishi.
Having meditated TM-style for decades, she made
*one* feeble attempt to go see him, failed at that,
and never felt the need to try to make another. But 
she'll tell you *exactly* how to interpret and 
understand every little thing that this guy she 
never met said, and claim to be RIGHT about it. 

I just like bringing up the "Apocalypto" thing 
because it's such Classic Judy -- making slander-
ous statements about the director of a film she
never bothered to see. 

> 
>  From: authfriend 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 6:29 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
> > >
> > > Well each to his own I reckon - but a guy who watched Maha 
> > > try to get an initiator to secretly carry a suitcase full 
> > > of money across international borders is an interesting 
> > > feller to listen to
> > 
> > I think you'll find that Judy doesn't agree with this, 
> > and feels instead that someone who never met Maharishi, 
> > never became a teacher, and in fact never cared about 
> > either him or her own spiritual pursuits enough to put 
> > herself in the same room with him
> 
> As Barry knows, I did go to considerable lengths to do
> exactly that. Unfortunately, I couldn't do anything
> about MMY's decision not to turn up in that room.
> 
> So there you are, there's an example of why you should
> not take any of Barry's assertions as fact unless you
> can verify them from another source. His assertion
> above is not fact.
> 
> , such as...wait for 
> > it...herself, is more authoritative and should be paid 
> > more attention to than others who did all these things.  :-)
> 
> Nor is this.
> 
> > Then again, she still feels that her view of Mel Gibson's
> > film "Apocalypto" is the most authoritative, too, and that
> > her characterization of him as "Mel Gibson, Christian Bigot"
> > is accurate, *never having seen the film*.  :-)
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/126

[FairfieldLife] Re: More Opera 12.04.12

2012-12-07 Thread emptybill


Raving Yogi

Why bother indeed! You're such a drama queen.


You are already Lucia - only without the knife.

Just remember ...  no matter how much you claim to love your Diva
(cognate with deva) she'll fry you with onions for  sheer entertainment
if you become too much of a lunatickle.





--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
> "Anyone actually watch it?"
>
> Stop begging empty baby - this habit of yours is highly irritating -
OK? I
> am not going to watch it.
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 9:46 PM, emptybill emptybill@... wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Wonderful performances everyone.
> >
> > What brilliant addendums to the vocal
> > ornamentations of Donizetti's Lucia.
> >
> > You all are of the highest literary amplitude
> > by recreating the mad scene right here on FFL.
> >
> > And by the way. Remember that video the Judy
> > was praising?
> >
> > Anyone actually watch it?
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Wonderful performances.
> > >
> > > That mad scene should be a snap-shot for men
> > > thinking these divas would be simple to deal with
> > > by a fool - a snap-shot of their own bloody corpse
> > > that is.
> > >
> > > Feste, be warned. They wouldn't just cut your
> > > heart out but also put a grenade under your
> > > body to greet anyone rolling you over.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Three Netrebko videos...
> > > >
> > > > "Quando m'en vo" ("Musetta's Waltz") from Puccini's La Boheme
> > > > (Not such a great aria for a concert performance; you really
> > > > need the staging for it to come across, but she sings it
> > > > nicely.)
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWnWivspwRE
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Sempre libera" from Verdi's Traviata
> > > > (From the new Met modern-dress production--a rather outre
> > > interpretation of Violetta, but it shows off her acting
> > > > ability.)
> > > >
> > > >
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFJJ1zFBWgY&feature=endscreen&NR=1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Mad Scene" from Donizetti's Lucia di Lammermoor
> > > > (Lucia has just killed her bridegroom. A conventional
> > > > production, but the staging of this scene is excellent,
> > > > and her performance is blood-chilling. It's a long
> > > > scene, over 10 minutes.)
> > > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX2r8ps9pUg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hah! Yeah â¦ she's like napalm.
> > > > >
> > > > > But image living with someone with such talent and charisma.
> > > > >
> > > > > Might easily end up like the performance by Dmitri
Hvorostovsky
> > and
> > > > > Renee Fleming in post #328213.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" 
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hotter than hot! There definitely was some cleavage, btw.
You
> > must
> > > > > have nodded off before they got it, you poor old bastard.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh yeah?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here is an Anna Netrebko interview where she shows no
cleavage
> > > but
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > > it also is "so hot".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No wonder that video with Dmitri stopped before their
actual
> > > kiss.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > > it was on the other video that I saw ... And the audience
> > loved
> > > it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=UgpVoMPGbUA
> > > > > > >
> > >

> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nice, but not enough cleavage, which is an essential
part of
> > a
> > > > > female
> > > > > > > opera singerÃ¢â¬â¢s repertoire, donÃ¢â¬â¢t
you think? In
> > > this
> > > > > > > regard, the divine Cecilia does not disappoint in the
> > following
> > > > > clip,
> > > > > > > especially given the tantalizing possibility of a wardrobe
> > > > > malfunction,
> > > > > > > which unfortunately not quite happen (but watch the
shoulder
> > > strap):
> > > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaKX21earkk (Oh, yes, the
> > aria
> > > is
> > > > > good
> > > > > > > too.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My favorite Cecilia is this:
> > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2IeGgk_06I
> > > > > > > > ItÃ¢â¬â¢s an aria from a Vivaldi opera and she
uses it as
> > an
> > > > > encore.
> > > > > > > ItÃ¢â¬â¢s breathtaking, sensational. I defy anyone
to keep
> > > still
> > > > > while
> > > > > > > they watch it. ItÃ¢â¬â¢s Baroque rock. And just
look at her
> > > face
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > she is finished.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cecilia is the sor

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra

2012-12-07 Thread Richard J. Williams



mjackson74: 
> I am curious however to know if that other teacher did 
> take the suitcase across borders? 
> 
> I think if it had been me, I would have done it and 
> taken out about a third for my efforts
>
It's all a matter of positionng - you positioned yourself 
close to MMY so you be a money courier; Barry positioned  
himslef close to MMY so he could be the MMY door-boy and
collect the donations. LoL!

Not sure why you and Barry would think meeting MMY in
person would make him understand the mechanics of
consciousness any better.

You must have been thnking that the closer you get to 
MMY, the easier to steal movement money. It's sort of 
like Barry and the Rama guy - and the more money Barry 
gave to Rama, the more times he could get to sit at 
Lenz's feet and learn how to get money from poor students 
for instant enlightenment. Go figure.

"The more you give, the more people we can help," Lenz 
says piously on a tape. "It's that simple."

http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Rama/wired

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra

2012-12-07 Thread nablusoss1008

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > Anyway, the bottom line is that hardly anybody pays much
> > > > attention to Barry these days except to make fun of him.
> > > > 

But Judy, isn't it nice that the Turqo now has a new fan here ? Since Curtis 
and Vaj are not posting here these days nobody cares about his slanders, lies, 
unstressing and self-promotion anymore. 
Must be a relief that a new wacko finally arrives who admires him :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra

2012-12-07 Thread Richard J. Williams



> > > its all rather confusing to me as I really didn't
> > > understand the incident re refered to - but it doesn't
> > > matter anyway - according to some here I don't really
> > > understand that much of anything - I am a confused
> > > Southerner
> > >
> > It's not that important, Michael, just an example
> > of How Judy Thinks. She read a review of the film
> > "Apocalypto" by someone who wrote disparagingly of
> > it and so, NOT having seen the film itself, passed
> > along the information in her normal way, as if it
> > were definitive. The subject line of the post,
> > calling Mel Gibson a "Christian bigot" for making
> > the film THAT SHE HAD NEVER SEEN was all her idea,
> > NOT anything that was in the review she read.
> >
> > She's STILL never seen the movie, but my bet is
> > that she will STILL claim to "know" that it's an
> > example of Mel Gibson's "Christian bigotry," and
> > that she's RIGHT, damnit. She makes up the defamatory
> > subject line of the post, and adds this at the end:
> >
> > > To highlight what the writer tactfully leaves
> > > implicit, Gibson has slandered the Maya and
> > > mangled history for the purpose of exalting the
> > > purported superiority of Christianity.
> >
> > Judy doesn't NEED the actual experience of something
> > to know all about it, you see. Same with Maharishi.
> > Having meditated TM-style for decades, she made
> > *one* feeble attempt to go see him, failed at that,
> > and never felt the need to try to make another. But
> > she'll tell you *exactly* how to interpret and
> > understand every little thing that this guy she
> > never met said, and claim to be RIGHT about it.
> >
> > I just like bringing up the "Apocalypto" thing
> > because it's such Classic Judy -- making slander-
> > ous statements about the director of a film she
> > never bothered to see.
> >
turquoiseb: 
> Just because I love this example of Judythink, I'll 
> expand on it. :-)
> 
So, it's all about Judy.

 
> http://www.salon.com/2006/12/15/maya/
> 
> 
> She glommed onto this Salon article, written by an anthropologist who
> was apoplectic because a film that was intended to be a popular
> entertainment didn't portray the facts about the historical Maya *as he
> wanted them to*. The author takes himself and his study of a dead
> civilization SO seriously, and can't stand anyone using it as mere
> backdrop to a story. One gets the feeling all throughout his article
> that he really thinks that people should have saved the ten bucks they
> spent on the movie and paid it to listen to him talk, talk, talk about
> stuff they weren't interested in. That's just SO Judy...I can see why
> she glommed onto this guy, and his article. They're a lot alike.
> 
> Because she never bothered to see the movie before using it as an excuse
> to dump on someone she already disliked (Mel Gibson), Judy also has no
> idea that the pedantic author she is citing *missed the whole point of
> the movie*. It was basically an adventure tale plus the thing Mel Gibson
> *always* puts in *all* of his movies -- a love story. The hero spends
> almost the entire film trying to find and rescue his wife and children.
> The rest of the film, including all the violence that people harped on,
> is just scenery, backdrop for the foreground story. But Judy wouldn't
> know that, because she never saw the movie.
> 
> One gets the feeling that the author of the Salon piece didn't really
> see it, either. He says stuff like, "In Apocalypto, the arrival of the
> Spanish signals 'a new beginning.' Remarkably, the event is portrayed as
> tranquil, as if the Spaniards are the adults who have finally come to
> rescue the 'littleuns' stranded on the island of William Golding's
> "Lord of the Flies." This is total bullshit, and did not happen in
> the film. The pedantic professor is *projecting* this onto the movie.
> The line "a new beginning" clearly refers to the hero's new life now
> that he has rescued his wife and children, and escaped his pursuers. It
> has *nothing to do* with the arrival of the Spanish; they are mere
> backdrops.
> 
> The pedantic professor goes on, with even more *pure projection*. He
> says, "But in the movie, after two hours of excess, hyperbole and
> hysteria, the Spaniards represent the arrival of sanity to the Maya
> world. The tacit paternalism is devastating." Again, NONE OF THIS IS IN
> THE MOVIE. HE *PROJECTED* IT THERE. In the movie itself, there is only a
> 3-4 second shot of a European ship and sailors heading towards the
> shore, and then the *real* protagonists of the movie turn away from them
> and go back to their lives. The idea that Mel Gibson was trying to say
> that the Spaniards brought civilization to a savage world IS NOT IN THE
> MOVIE.
> 
> Finally, the pedantic professor ends by revealing what the bug up his
> butt *really* is. He's pissed off that people are watching Mel Gibson's
> movie and not listening to him and other pedantic academics

[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> > >
> > > One gets the feeling that the author of the Salon piece didn't
> really
> > > see it, either. He says stuff like, "In Apocalypto, the arrival of
> the
> > > Spanish signals 'a new beginning.' Remarkably, the event is
> portrayed as
> > > tranquil, as if the Spaniards are the adults who have finally come
> to
> > > rescue the 'littleuns' stranded on the island of William Golding's
> > > "Lord of the Flies." This is total bullshit, and did not happen in
> > > the film. The pedantic professor is *projecting* this onto the
> movie.
> > > The line "a new beginning" clearly refers to the hero's new life now
> > > that he has rescued his wife and children, and escaped his pursuers.
> It
> > > has *nothing to do* with the arrival of the Spanish; they are mere
> > > backdrops.
> >
> > If what I remember in history is correct, i.e. that the Spaniards
> brought
> > smallpox and other disease to the Mayan empire, then I viewed the
> > arrival of the Spaniards at the end of the movie as the ultimate
> ironic
> > statement of the movie...they actually *hastened* the downfall of the
> > Mayan empire (now how's *that* for change?).
> 
> This is true, but most of the "empire" was already gone by the
> time the Spanish arrived.
> 
> > Really, this was the first thought that went through my mind the first
> > time I saw the movie and the camera panned from the surprised faces
> > of the Mayans on the beach to the Spanish ships anchored offshore.
> 
> Mine, too. Of course, we had the advantage of actually having
> seen the movie; Judy did not.
> 
> > With that in mind, perhaps one can now interpret what happened in
> > the movie in other ways: karmic return for the "civilized" Mayans,
> > the salvation of the young Mayan (once again) and his family by his
> > decision to turn his back on the yet unknown and ultimate death
> > that the Spaniards were bringing (again, this is what I thought the
> > first time I saw this scene), etc.
> 
> One can interpret *a movie one has actually seen* any way one
> wants; that does not mean that the writer/director saw it that way.
> 
> > I found the movie disturbing yet fascinating at the same time, and
> > am not sure one can read too much into the movie other than
> > Gibson's story-telling ability then letting the audience come to
> > their own conclusions.
> 
> The whole point of the author's tirade and Judy's piggybacking
> on it was that they didn't WANT the audience to come to their
> own conclusions. They wanted them to agree with THEIR
> conclusions, however wrong they were.

I hear what you're saying, I really do, but I just wanted to expand of what was 
already started as an opportunity for me to talk about the movie and some of 
the conclusions I came to. Like you, I didn't see any Christian themes in the 
movie and didn't even know Gibson had directed it until the end credits, 
therefore I was able to view the movie without any preconceived notions 
whatsoever with regard to what such a director might be trying to say in the 
movie. Like you, I viewed it as simply a good story well told with some spotty 
history as the backdrop.

> > However, with his beliefs coming through loud and clear in his
> > later "Passion of the Christ" movie...
> 
> Ooops. Stop right there. "The Passion of the Christ" was *earlier*,
> not later. "Apocalypto" = 2006, "TPofC" = 2004.

Oopsy, my bad. When I wrote that, I had a momentarily impulse to google it to 
see if I had my facts right but then decided not to (very interesting...maybe I 
need to start acting on my impulses).

> > ...maybe the arrival of the Spaniards *was* intended to represent
> > the ultimate salvation of the heathen Mayans (now how's *that*
> > for salvation?).
> 
> Mel's one crazy-assed religious fanatic, that's for sure. What I'm
> saying is that I saw NONE of that in this film. Nor did most
> people who saw it. Even the Pedantic Professor didn't see anything
> "Christian" in the movie, or if he did he didn't mention it in the
> article he wrote for Salon. JUDY "saw" that -- in a film that she
> never saw.
> 
> One would think, if she actually meant what she has said many
> times about "rigorous honesty" being the willingness to expose
> oneself to facts that might prove oneself W...W...W...WRONG,
> that she'd have bothered to rent the film by now and then issue
> an apology to Mel Gibson for slandering him. But I think we all
> know that's never going to happen.
> 
> Please don't get me wrong. I don't think Mel Gibson is the best
> filmmaker in the world as a director, only that he has a certain
> flair for action/romance movies. In that respect, he's a lot like
> Warren Beatty. The latter's movie "Reds" was not about the
> Russian Revolution, ferchrissakes, it was about the love story
> between John Reed and Louise Brya

[FairfieldLife] One Last Darshan of Swami

2012-12-07 Thread martin.quickman

"You must have not only freedom from fear, but freedom from hope and 
expectation. Trust in My Wisdom. I do not make mistakes. Love My uncertainty, 
for it is not a mistake. It is My intent and Will. Remember nothing happens 
without My Will. Be still. Do not ask to understand. Do not want to understand. 
Relinquish the imperative that demands understanding."

- Bhagavan Baba, Sanathana Sarathi, August, 1984

***

... As Bhagavan turned to go inside, one of the boys, (who had to leave by 1.00 
p.m. that afternoon) shouted, unable to contain his joy, "Sairam, Swami." 
"Sairam", responded Bhagavan and blessed us with His `abhaya hasta'. We were in 
raptures over His unexpected greeting and with it He sealed for all of us a 
cherished memory of a lifetime.

http://sathyasaimemories.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/one-last-darshan-sathya-sai-memories-cont/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Fairfield Nonprofit group plans to reopen former Co-Ed Theater

Hey Buck, great to know the details about this.  Yeah, it gives a little lift 
to my heart when I see the new message on the marquee.  Thanks for posting.  
Sometimes I think that our community in Fairfield is one of the coolest 
outcomes of TM.  I feel fortunate to live here.  Wish similar for everyone.  
Well, only if they wish it too yada yada (-:




 From: Buck 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 10:13 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Fairfield Nonprofit group plans to reopen former Co-Ed 
Theater
 

  
FW: Girindra Selleck was the only participant tall enough to reach the area on 
the old Co-Ed marquee to put up the new lettering stating that a new theater is 
coming in 2013. Handing the letters to him is Neil Cunningham, while his father 
Thomas Selleck gives directions. The reopened theater will be called the 
Orpheum Theatre under nonprofit status and will show first run movies in the 
remodeled space.

The Co-Ed Theater is exhibiting signs of life for the first time since Big Time 
Cinema deserted the operation due to bankruptcy less than three months ago.

A handful of residents gathered at noon Wednesday to letter the vacant marquee 
to read, "New Theatre coming 2013." The declaration was the first visible 
indication of new management, not by a private operator as might be expected, 
but instead by a gathering of citizens eager to transform the facility into a 
state-of-the-art, community-run theater. To that end, about a dozen residents 
led by Patricia Draznin, Sheila Ross and John Matthews have formed a nonprofit 
registered with the state, the Orpheum Theatre and Fairfield Film Institute.

While many were mourning the loss of the Co-Ed in September, Draznin secretly 
rejoiced. She had her eye on the Co-Ed ever since she read about the State 
Theatre in Traverse City, Mich., in 2007. She learned how the nonprofit 
Traverse City Film Festival refurbished the century theater with the help of 
director Michael Moore, where it now shows 365 movies per year.

When the news broke the Co-Ed had closed, Draznin said she picked up her phone 
immediately to call the theater's managing owner, Chris Johnson of Mandala 6 
Land Partners.

"I told him, `I'm really excited the Co-Ed closed, it's a great opportunity,'" 
said Draznin. "We could turn it into something really good."

Draznin was not alone. Johnson said he received a flood of calls from people 
with ideas for the theater's future.

Johnson encouraged the group to form a nonprofit, which would allow them the 
freedom to choose movies, and to raise the money to convert both theaters to 
digital technology, the new industrywide standard.

Draznin began researching for examples of communities that successfully had 
raised money to refurbish their town's historic movie theaters. She found a 
dozen in Iowa including, Pella, Washington, De Witt, Lake Mills, Marshalltown, 
Denison and Mount Pleasant.

"All over Iowa there are theaters, which have already done the same thing and 
succeeded in refurbishing, converting to digital and are now operating in the 
black," she said. "We feel very confident that once we're ready to start taking 
donations, it's not going to be a big deal to do."

The committee hopes to raise approximately $300,000 to upgrade both screens, 
install a new sound system and to put in stadium seating. Johnson plans to 
invest in renovating the lobby and bathrooms. Mandala 6 Land Partners will 
manage the project.

The committee's vision is for the theater to feature a variety of first-run 
movies, old classics and independent films. They plan to have offerings for all 
ages, with weekend matinees for children, late-night shows for college students 
and film festivals and premieres. The nonprofit will run the movie theater.

Johnson plans to restore the century-old lobby to grandeur with art nouveau or 
art deco styling. He also will provide seating for about 40 people at couches 
and tables, who can enjoy café items and beverages from several vendors.

"It's a real labor of love," said Draznin. "What could be more fun than 
restoring your hometown movie theater?"

The committee is in the process of forming an executive board, which will steer 
the activities of the theater and manage subcommittees in charge of movie 
selection, fundraising, etc. Draznin said there is no lack of volunteers.

"The minute we made the announcement, people began offering expertise, 
assistance, and some already have offered donations," she said.

A subcommittee soon will approach the community for donations, she said. The 
nonprofit also will likely apply for government funding through state grants, 
but Draznin said they do not plan to ask the city for financial support.

Gathering feedback from the community is currently top on the committee's list. 
In the next couple of weeks, the group will be dispersing a film survey 
throughout town.

"This will be a chance to tell us how we can best serve

[FairfieldLife] AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION ON TM STUDY

2012-12-07 Thread merlin



AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION ON  TM  STUDY >>>



https://www.mum.edu/RelId/638015/ISvars/default/11_28_2012_-_RESULTS_OF_AHA_PUBLISHING_LANDMARK_TM_STUDY.htm


Results of American Heart Association publishing landmark TM study    

 
 Regular TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION /TM practice lowered risks of heart attack, 
stroke and death from all causes by 48%

[FairfieldLife] Civic Virtue

2012-12-07 Thread Buck

"I thought every human on this planet is responsible for some progress and I 
was looking for an opportunity to take my share in it," he says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20609795

[FairfieldLife] Re: Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > One gets the feeling that the author of the Salon piece didn't
really
> > see it, either. He says stuff like, "In Apocalypto, the arrival of
the
> > Spanish signals 'a new beginning.' Remarkably, the event is
portrayed as
> > tranquil, as if the Spaniards are the adults who have finally come
to
> > rescue the 'littleuns' stranded on the island of William Golding's
> > "Lord of the Flies." This is total bullshit, and did not happen in
> > the film. The pedantic professor is *projecting* this onto the
movie.
> > The line "a new beginning" clearly refers to the hero's new life now
> > that he has rescued his wife and children, and escaped his pursuers.
It
> > has *nothing to do* with the arrival of the Spanish; they are mere
> > backdrops.
>
> If what I remember in history is correct, i.e. that the Spaniards
brought
> smallpox and other disease to the Mayan empire, then I viewed the
> arrival of the Spaniards at the end of the movie as the ultimate
ironic
> statement of the movie...they actually *hastened* the downfall of the
> Mayan empire (now how's *that* for change?).

This is true, but most of the "empire" was already gone by the
time the Spanish arrived.

> Really, this was the first thought that went through my mind the first
> time I saw the movie and the camera panned from the surprised faces
> of the Mayans on the beach to the Spanish ships anchored offshore.

Mine, too. Of course, we had the advantage of actually having
seen the movie; Judy did not.

> With that in mind, perhaps one can now interpret what happened in
> the movie in other ways: karmic return for the "civilized" Mayans,
> the salvation of the young Mayan (once again) and his family by his
> decision to turn his back on the yet unknown and ultimate death
> that the Spaniards were bringing (again, this is what I thought the
> first time I saw this scene), etc.

One can interpret *a movie one has actually seen* any way one
wants; that does not mean that the writer/director saw it that way.

> I found the movie disturbing yet fascinating at the same time, and
> am not sure one can read too much into the movie other than
> Gibson's story-telling ability then letting the audience come to
> their own conclusions.

The whole point of the author's tirade and Judy's piggybacking
on it was that they didn't WANT the audience to come to their
own conclusions. They wanted them to agree with THEIR
conclusions, however wrong they were.

> However, with his beliefs coming through loud and clear in his
> later "Passion of the Christ" movie...

Ooops. Stop right there. "The Passion of the Christ" was *earlier*,
not later. "Apocalypto" = 2006, "TPofC" = 2004.

> ...maybe the arrival of the Spaniards *was* intended to represent
> the ultimate salvation of the heathen Mayans (now how's *that*
> for salvation?).

Mel's one crazy-assed religious fanatic, that's for sure. What I'm
saying is that I saw NONE of that in this film. Nor did most
people who saw it. Even the Pedantic Professor didn't see anything
"Christian" in the movie, or if he did he didn't mention it in the
article he wrote for Salon. JUDY "saw" that -- in a film that she
never saw.

One would think, if she actually meant what she has said many
times about "rigorous honesty" being the willingness to expose
oneself to facts that might prove oneself W...W...W...WRONG,
that she'd have bothered to rent the film by now and then issue
an apology to Mel Gibson for slandering him. But I think we all
know that's never going to happen.

Please don't get me wrong. I don't think Mel Gibson is the best
filmmaker in the world as a director, only that he has a certain
flair for action/romance movies. In that respect, he's a lot like
Warren Beatty. The latter's movie "Reds" was not about the
Russian Revolution, ferchrissakes, it was about the love story
between John Reed and Louise Bryant.

Similarly, "Apocalypto" was not a movie about the Maya per
se, or an attempt to be completely factual. That's what the
Pedantic Professor would have wanted, or created himself if
he'd had the ability to. It was an ENTERTAINMENT, a
story meant to entertain, and possibly uplift with its eventual
triumph of the main character overcoming everything thrown
at him, and being reunited with his wife and kids.

Trying to diss it for being not as factual as an academic Maya
nerd might have wanted it to is as STOPID as trying to
diss the film "Cleopatra" for being not 100% accurate in its
depictions of Egypt and Roman soldiers. "Cleopatra" was a
love story; so was "Apocalypto."

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Global Country

2012-12-07 Thread Buck


The Global Country of World Peace is a "nation without borders" promoting unity 
in consciousness and the reduction of the narrow nationalism that divides 
humanity from humanity. It is a home for peace-loving people everywhere.

>
> The domain of the Global Country of World Peace is CONSCIOUSNESSthe prime 
> mover of lifethe ground state of natural law, the field of all 
> possibilities. The Global Country of World Peace is a non-political, 
> non-religious global organization and does not usurp any of the functions of 
> existing governments, nor does it replace them in any way.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Meaning of the Moola Mantra

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > One gets the feeling that the author of the Salon piece didn't really
> > see it, either. He says stuff like, "In Apocalypto, the arrival of the
> > Spanish signals 'a new beginning.' Remarkably, the event is portrayed
> as
> > tranquil, as if the Spaniards are the adults who have finally come to
> > rescue the 'littleuns' stranded on the island of William Golding's
> > "Lord of the Flies." This is total bullshit, and did not happen in
> > the film. The pedantic professor is *projecting* this onto the movie.
> > The line "a new beginning" clearly refers to the hero's new life now
> > that he has rescued his wife and children, and escaped his pursuers.
> It
> > has *nothing to do* with the arrival of the Spanish; they are mere
> > backdrops.
> 
> Curious about this professor's projections, I downloaded a new
> clean copy of "Apocalypto" to watch these last scenes and thus
> refresh my memory. FAR from portraying the arrival of the
> Spaniards as 'rescuers' or Christans come to save the Maya from
> their savagery, Mel Gibson has his protagonist explicitly *reject*
> the arriving foreigners, and go with his family into the forest.
> The actual dialogue goes, as his wife catches sight of the ships:
> 
> - What are they?
> - They bring men.
> - Should we go to them?
> - We should go to the forest. To seek a new beginning.
> 
> They then turn away and disappear into the forest. If anything,
> the protagonist is seeing the new arrivals as what they are --
> new, potentially dangerous, and not worth "going to." He
> *certainly* does not see them as "saviors," or as "adults who
> have finally come to rescue the 'littleuns'." This professor
> is as blind as he is pedantic and petty.
> 

Barry, I hadn't yet read this until after I had posted my lengthier response 
moments ago. Sounds like we're heading in the same direction with regard to our 
interpretations, i.e. the Spaniards ironically being dangerous rather than 
saviors.

> It is difficult for me to imagine how he could have possibly
> interpreted this scene and these lines as the Spanish bringing
> this "new beginning" he spoke so disparagingly of.
> 
> It is easier for me to imagine how Judy interpreted it this way,
> and in fact added in the "Christian bigot" angle that was not
> even present in the professor's diatribe. After all, she never
> saw the movie.
> 
> Or, seemingly, feels that she needed to. Just as she does when
> declaring exactly what someone on this forum was thinking
> and what they "really" intended when they posted something
> she didn't like, Judy just "knows things." We're supposed to
> believe that these things are true because Judy said them.
> 
> Yeah, right.
>

[FairfieldLife] Let's talk about the movie Apocalypto