[FairfieldLife] Mind over matter?

[card]

It is said he "should've" been dead long ago:

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZrntE3vNe8

(Blimey, that drummer is RELY DRUNKEN?? LoL!)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> 
> > Doc, cringing at being likened to a clam, I'm gonna use part of Xeno's 
> > analogy anyway.  Now imagine our little clam not only having an evasively 
> > prodding starfish to contend with, but also a big crab with sharp claws 
> > and a bunch of slithery stingrays jabbing at her with their acidy 
> > tendrils.  No wonder she blew a gasket and dropped a bomb on all of 
> > them!  Psychologically raped!  Then a wonderful pod of dolphins arrived 
> > and told our little clam that her bomb was on target.
> 
> I was not imagining you as a clam, specifically. I was imagining anyone in 
> Robin's grip as a clam, including myself. It was a generalised analogy about 
> how it feels to be faced with no escape. When a clam is attacked, it clams 
> up. When no threat, it can open up. This is why techniques such as 
> meditation, contemplation, and questioning everything tend to be more 
> effective in the long run, than having one's stuff ripped open forcefully. 
> When the time is ripe, one's dark stuff will flow like blood in a massacre 
> unaided by any external prod.
>

No escape from Robin's grip? Really? Did Robin's rip open your stuff 
forcefully? Did he cause your dark stuff to flow like blood in a massacre 
before it was ripe? What the hell are you talking about? Repeat after me: "I am 
the master of my destiny. Nobody fucks with me unless I allow it."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> "It was a generalised analogy about how it feels to be faced with no escape."
> 
> No escape? On the Internet?
> Here's seven of them. Escapes, that is:
> 
> 1. Step away from the networked device.
> 2. Go to a different site.
> 3. Turn off your networking device.
> 4. Stop, and then share your impressions directly with the poster.
> 5. Breathe deeply, think it through, and recognize your part in it. 
> 6. Examine why, in a voluntary, public, virtual group, you felt faced with 
> "no escape".
> 7. Have some pie and coffee.
> 

8. Eat a chicken sandwich. Hat tip, Dr. Pete.

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > 
> > > Doc, cringing at being likened to a clam, I'm gonna use part of Xeno's 
> > > analogy anyway.  Now imagine our little clam not only having an 
> > > evasively 
> > > prodding starfish to contend with, but also a big crab with sharp claws 
> > > and a bunch of slithery stingrays jabbing at her with their acidy 
> > > tendrils.  No wonder she blew a gasket and dropped a bomb on all of 
> > > them!  Psychologically raped!  Then a wonderful pod of dolphins arrived 
> > > and told our little clam that her bomb was on target.
> > 
> > I was not imagining you as a clam, specifically. I was imagining anyone in 
> > Robin's grip as a clam, including myself. It was a generalised analogy 
> > about how it feels to be faced with no escape. When a clam is attacked, it 
> > clams up. When no threat, it can open up. This is why techniques such as 
> > meditation, contemplation, and questioning everything tend to be more 
> > effective in the long run, than having one's stuff ripped open forcefully. 
> > When the time is ripe, one's dark stuff will flow like blood in a massacre 
> > unaided by any external prod.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL

[doctordumbass]

Thanks Judy, for filling in some of my blanks.:-) Good to know.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Share,
> > I have been reading through all these messages over this original 
> > expression of yours. I honestly do not see how it is possible on a public 
> > forum with neither person physically known to the other, with no prior 
> > relationship at all, for someone to psychologically ultimately violate 
> > another person. 
> > 
> > If someone addresses you in a way you don't like, then respond by all 
> > means, in terms of yourself. No need to place the burden of your feelings 
> > on the forum poster. And, again, this is a public Internet forum. As you 
> > said yourself, you didn't have a relationship with Robin.
> > 
> > Why not say at the time, "Hey Robin, you do not have the
> > right to ask me such questions. I am comfortable working
> > on this on my own."?
> 
> If I may interject to clarify something:
> 
> At the time Robin made his remarks to which Share four
> weeks later took violent exception, Share *did* indicate
> some mild discomfort with the issue he had raised. He
> backed off immediately and apologized for making her
> uncomfortable, explaining that what he had described was
> *his* experience of what she had said in her previous post
> and that he had never meant to impose his experience on
> her.
> 
> See that exchange here:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/342376
> 
> They continued to chat about this-a and that-a, the issue
> apparently having been resolved to the satisfaction of
> both.
> 
> Three days later, Share suddenly declared an end to their
> conversations because of his initial remarks.
> 
> However, she insisted that she had not "suffered or [felt]
> insulted," nor did she think Robin was being "hurtful or
> cruel." She simply didn't want "to pursue the theme of
> whether or not" she was being the real Share or of her 
> "alleged hyper positivity."
> 
> Robin was baffled because he *hadn't* pursued either "theme."
> As it turned out, her reappraisal at that point was due to
> a misunderstanding on *her* part of what he had said
> initially. It took some time before the nature of her misunderstanding became 
> clear. That's another whole story;
> it was rather convoluted, to say the least.
> 
> Anyway, the "psychological rape" accusation came four
> weeks later. According to Share, she had considered his
> remarks "psychological rape" at the time, although she
> hadn't yet come up with the term, and what she said at the
> time did not seem to indicate any significant distress on
> her part.
> 
> OK, I'm done. Pardon the interruption. You've made excellent
> points, but so much of this issue depends on knowing exactly
> what happened when.
> 
> 
> > By casting a label of absolute power on him solves nothing. Not only is it 
> > not true, it doesn't really establish your boundary of personal power.
> > 
> > Forums are very interesting entities, moved by thought power alone, 
> > observation and response. Anyone contributing has absolute power over their 
> > identity here, including you, and including Robin. There is nothing easier.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape

[doctordumbass]

"It was a generalised analogy about how it feels to be faced with no escape."

No escape? On the Internet?
Here's seven of them. Escapes, that is:

1. Step away from the networked device.
2. Go to a different site.
3. Turn off your networking device.
4. Stop, and then share your impressions directly with the poster.
5. Breathe deeply, think it through, and recognize your part in it. 
6. Examine why, in a voluntary, public, virtual group, you felt faced with "no 
escape".
7. Have some pie and coffee.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> 
> > Doc, cringing at being likened to a clam, I'm gonna use part of Xeno's 
> > analogy anyway.  Now imagine our little clam not only having an evasively 
> > prodding starfish to contend with, but also a big crab with sharp claws 
> > and a bunch of slithery stingrays jabbing at her with their acidy 
> > tendrils.  No wonder she blew a gasket and dropped a bomb on all of 
> > them!  Psychologically raped!  Then a wonderful pod of dolphins arrived 
> > and told our little clam that her bomb was on target.
> 
> I was not imagining you as a clam, specifically. I was imagining anyone in 
> Robin's grip as a clam, including myself. It was a generalised analogy about 
> how it feels to be faced with no escape. When a clam is attacked, it clams 
> up. When no threat, it can open up. This is why techniques such as 
> meditation, contemplation, and questioning everything tend to be more 
> effective in the long run, than having one's stuff ripped open forcefully. 
> When the time is ripe, one's dark stuff will flow like blood in a massacre 
> unaided by any external prod.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

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

> Doc, cringing at being likened to a clam, I'm gonna use part of Xeno's 
> analogy anyway.  Now imagine our little clam not only having an evasively 
> prodding starfish to contend with, but also a big crab with sharp claws 
> and a bunch of slithery stingrays jabbing at her with their acidy 
> tendrils.  No wonder she blew a gasket and dropped a bomb on all of 
> them!  Psychologically raped!  Then a wonderful pod of dolphins arrived 
> and told our little clam that her bomb was on target.

I was not imagining you as a clam, specifically. I was imagining anyone in 
Robin's grip as a clam, including myself. It was a generalised analogy about 
how it feels to be faced with no escape. When a clam is attacked, it clams up. 
When no threat, it can open up. This is why techniques such as meditation, 
contemplation, and questioning everything tend to be more effective in the long 
run, than having one's stuff ripped open forcefully. When the time is ripe, 
one's dark stuff will flow like blood in a massacre unaided by any external 
prod.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL

[doctordumbass]

I don't know anything about you, except what you post here. And that is what I 
see, CC. The tell is your intellectual clarity, on the one hand, and the zeal 
with which you favor it, over a more simple representation of what goes on 
around here. I am not praising you or insulting you, simply making a judgment 
based on what I can see of you. 

My point to Share was that her desire for a more perfect integration, inside 
and out, is hard to follow vis a vis someone who is expressing CC, because the 
nature of CC, as explained with my building analogy, is duality. Sort of a 
perfect duality, but nonetheless lacking the simple integration into non-dual 
existence (while appreciating the overflowing abundance and diversity in the 
universe). 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
>
> > Zee Know is in CC when he posts. A very inefficient reality. Imagine a 
> > building with a solid foundation, but lots of scaffolding covering the 
> > exterior. Not yet ready to look through the windows at the outside world. 
> > :-)
> 
> Doc, as I do not experience any witnessing, this must be a particularly inept 
> version of CC you are blessing me with. Perhaps it is indeed the long sought 
> for comatose consciousness.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL

[doctordumbass]

An unwarranted intrusion, aka, psychological rape, on here, FFL? Nah - I also 
agree the past is where it belongs, though I am not convinced that anyone 
influences anyone else here on FFL, *against* their will. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote:
> > For a person to express something about how another's post feels to
> them is one thing. I do it all the time, on here. But to make the other
> person responsible for such a feeling, is ultimately irresponsible. Do
> you see it differently?
> 
> My take is that Share felt that the best description of that interaction
> with Robin was "psychological rape".
> 
> I don't think she feels she was victimized, any more that I might have
> felt when Robin played the same number on me.
> 
> You think you are interacting with someone along more normal paramters,
> more of a mutual give and take, but Robin brings to the table a
> different approach.
> 
> People may feel that it is an awesome approach designed to help them
> break through some boundries that need to be broken, or people may feel
> it is an unwarranted intrusion into their personal space.  I think it is
> as simple as that.
> 
> And if someone wished to describe that intrusion  as "psychological
> rape", well then, that is their perogative, and I don't see that it is
> that big of a deal.  But others may feel differently.
> 
> I think Share reacted well within what would be considered a normal
> reaction.  And if she was knocked off balance for a (very) short time,
> then that is also understandable and I would say she bounced back pretty
> quickly and would have been ready to move on if not
> for..
> 
> My apologies, if I have taken any liberties into Share's thought
> processes.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> (snip)
> > I did not read Judy's post in any detail
> (snip)
> > Judy finds what I say 'insupportable and unconscionable'; I
> > would say she does not illuminate, does not open up the
> > discussion
> 
> Perhaps you should have read my post in detail. (Perhaps,
> in fact, you shouldn't really be commenting on it at all
> if you did not.)

Perhaps not. I have a certain reticence to be parsed to death, but I will have 
more limited time for most of the rest of the week.
> 
> > one is, if on the wrong end of her view, simply and
> > utterly wrong, there is no potential for redemption or
> > discussion.
> 
> There was plenty of potential for discussion, but you
> would have to have read the post to know about it.
> ("Redemption," I don't know, it would depend on how you
> reacted to all the information I provided you with.)
> 
> (snip>
> > In the past he seemed to have really messed with peoples'
> > minds, and was quite capable of doing that. My suspicion
> > is he still does, but perhaps in a more mollified way.
> > Judy, Emily, and Ann do not seem to share this suspicion
> > of mine. But then, some stay with an abusive spouse or
> > partner, always thinking that the problem is their fault.
> 
> Right, but since Emily, Ann, and I have not experienced
> abuse from Robin, how would this last be relevant?

That was not meant to be taken literally. But perhaps it is not relevant.

> (snip)
> > Judy often accuses [Curtis] of context shifting. As far
> > as I can tell, everyone does that. It is those grooves
> > and conditioned responses the mind has. We are unable
> > to not shift the context of an argument.
> 
> "As far as I can tell" are the key words here. That Curtis
> is doing something different from what everyone else does
> does not become evident until one becomes involved in a
> hostile debate with him (as I've pointed out here over and
> over). When it's *your* context he's shifting, you know it
> isn't like what others do. (Otherwise, it wouldn't, you
> know, be an issue.)

This is an argument you have used in the past, but as I said, I have not looked 
into the matter. Maybe I should attack Curtis, and see if I can find out. I 
would have a bias. Curtis' manner of thinking tend to be appealing to me. 
Robin's thinking seems to be appealing to you, but at some point, as you with 
Curtis, I find Robin's thinking shifting to something I would call strange.

> (snip>
> > By the way, if you are reading this Share, Twinkies are
> > coming back. Maybe all of this discussion about rape was
> > the result of sugar you had one day.
> >
> > http://now.msn.com/twinkies-returning-in-july
> 
> (Let's see if Share screams at you for referring to "rape"
> instead of "psychological rape," as she did at Ann. I'm
> guessing she won't.)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> XENO!  I posted the news item about Twinkies making a comeback on Friday 
> evening with your name in Subject line!  Oh well...

I missed that. I was in my cave writing. Then I watched a movie. I do not spend 
a lot of energy reading everything on FFL. You scooped me! Actually I preferred 
the Hostess chocolate cupcakes, you know, devil's food. When I ran across the 
article on Google news, having missed your post, I thought of you as I had used 
the Twinkie as an analogy concerning you.

Hostess Twinkie
Hostess Twinkie, 1 Twinkee
Nutrition Facts
Calories in Hostess Twinkie, 1 Twinkee
Serving Size: 1 serving
Amount Per Serving
Calories 150.0
Total Fat 4.0 g
Saturated Fat 2.0 g
Polyunsaturated Fat 0.0 g
Monounsaturated Fat 0.0 g
Cholesterol 20.0 mg
Sodium 220.0 mg
Potassium 0.0 mg
Total Carbohydrate 27.0 g
Dietary Fiber 0.0 g
Sugars 19.0 g
Protein 1.0 g
Vitamin A 0.0 %
Vitamin B-12 0.0 %
Vitamin B-6 0.0 %
Vitamin C 0.0 %
Vitamin D 0.0 %
Vitamin E 0.0 %
Calcium 0.0 %
Copper 0.0 %
Folate 0.0 %
Iron 0.0 %
Magnesium 0.0 %
Manganese 0.0 %
Niacin 0.0 %
Pantothenic Acid 0.0 %
Phosphorus 0.0 %
Riboflavin 0.0 %
Selenium 0.0 %
Thiamin 0.0 %
Zinc 0.0 %

Nutrition Facts
Calories in hostess cupcakes
Serving Size: 1 serving
Amount Per Serving
Calories 170.0
Total Fat 6.0 g
Saturated Fat 3.0 g
Polyunsaturated Fat 0.0 g
Monounsaturated Fat 0.0 g
Cholesterol 5.0 mg
Sodium 250.0 mg
Potassium 0.0 mg
Total Carbohydrate 30.0 g
Dietary Fiber 1.0 g
Sugars 21.0 g
Protein 1.0 g
Vitamin A 0.0 %
Vitamin B-12 0.0 %
Vitamin B-6 0.0 %
Vitamin C 0.0 %
Vitamin D 0.0 %
Vitamin E 0.0 %
Calcium 0.0 %
Copper 0.0 %
Folate 0.0 %
Iron 0.0 %
Magnesium 0.0 %
Manganese 0.0 %
Niacin 0.0 %
Pantothenic Acid 0.0 %
Phosphorus 0.0 %
Riboflavin 0.0 %
Selenium 0.0 %
Thiamin 0.0 %
Zinc 0.0 % 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[curtisdeltablues]

I hope you have the time to check out Mike singing this song here.  In 4 months 
he will be dead.  He may not know the date, but he knows his train is heading 
for the station.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udSxPjk9EVw

I took a lesson from him around this time.  He was a crotchety thing.  And he 
was dying.  But he traveled to DC to teach the music he loved and I will always 
associate him with this song.  It was the first song I tackled when I got my 
gourd banjo. It is was an important reason that  I bought the thing, I am no 
banjo player.

My banjo playing friends thought I was crazy to chase a song in a minor key 
with an obscure style.  But Mike understood.  He played my banjo and declared 
it beautifully made. He handed it back to me and then told me that just about 
every single thing I did with it in my hands was not right.  And it still 
isn't.  But I can slay a roomful of people with my version of this song, and it 
was a gift from Mike.  He may gnash his teeth at my ineptitude, but it is in my 
hands now.







--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > > Lying down in the pines
> > > > 
> > > > RD: Was she conscious or not? Was she face up or face down? Was she 
> > > > forced or not forced to lie down? Passively lying down does not imply 
> > > > consent. Resisting an inevitable gang rape could mean being severely 
> > > > beaten into submission. Had she been beaten into submission?    
> > > > 
> > > > A gang of boys around her
> > > > 
> > > > RD: She is surrounded. There is no escape. The boys have an
> > > > agenda. The image evokes impending harm. 
> > > >  
> > > > Some was higgin it
> > > > Some was kissin it
> > > > Some was huggin it
> > > > 
> > > > RD: This was the kicker for me. I got emotionally hooked by
> > > > the use of the word "it" instead of "her." Whether higgin
> > > > or huggin, "IT" implies depersonalization, thus, making it
> > > > easier to assault another human being.   
> > > >   
> > > > Some was kneeling down
> > > > 
> > > > RD: They weren't saying their prayers. It's an image of guys
> > > > getting ready to take turns mounting her...getting ready to 
> > > > mount "it."
> > > > 
> > > > There more rascal hangin round
> > > > Try to tear my kingdom down
> > > > 
> > > > RD: He's pissed she left him, doesn't care she got gang raped
> > > > and got the punishment she deserved. He's pissed these guys
> > > > had sex with her, a woman who done him wrong by leaving him
> > > > and having sex with other men, consensual or not.
> > > 
> > > Could she have been a prostitute?
> > > 
> > > I suppose it does happen, but I have trouble with the
> > > notion of a woman having consensual sex for fun with
> > > more than a couple of guys. If she was a prostitute,
> > > the sex would have been consensual but not (on her part)
> > > for fun.
> > > 
> > > I dunno, just throwing that out as another possibility.
> > 
> > Prostitutes usually have one john at a time. More than two,
> > aren't there to pay for services rendered.
> 
> Well, a pro wouldn't, but a pro would probably not be
> doing it on the grass either. I was thinking more of
> an amateur who would let word get around in town about
> where she'd be that night when she wanted a little
> extra cash, then take on whoever showed up--sort of
> informal and friendly, like a party, except they'd pay
> her. She'd probably know all the guys, and they'd all
> know each other, which would keep things relatively
> safe--they wouldn't want to spoil a good thing.
> 
> I'm just making this up as I go along. I really haven't
> a clue.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > > Lying down in the pines
> > > > 
> > > > RD: Was she conscious or not? Was she face up or face down? Was she 
> > > > forced or not forced to lie down? Passively lying down does not imply 
> > > > consent. Resisting an inevitable gang rape could mean being severely 
> > > > beaten into submission. Had she been beaten into submission?    
> > > > 
> > > > A gang of boys around her
> > > > 
> > > > RD: She is surrounded. There is no escape. The boys have an
> > > > agenda. The image evokes impending harm. 
> > > >  
> > > > Some was higgin it
> > > > Some was kissin it
> > > > Some was huggin it
> > > > 
> > > > RD: This was the kicker for me. I got emotionally hooked by
> > > > the use of the word "it" instead of "her." Whether higgin
> > > > or huggin, "IT" implies depersonalization, thus, making it
> > > > easier to assault another human being.   
> > > >   
> > > > Some was kneeling down
> > > > 
> > > > RD: They weren't saying their prayers. It's an image of guys
> > > > getting ready to take turns mounting her...getting ready to 
> > > > mount "it."
> > > > 
> > > > There more rascal hangin round
> > > > Try to tear my kingdom down
> > > > 
> > > > RD: He's pissed she left him, doesn't care she got gang raped
> > > > and got the punishment she deserved. He's pissed these guys
> > > > had sex with her, a woman who done him wrong by leaving him
> > > > and having sex with other men, consensual or not.
> > > 
> > > Could she have been a prostitute?
> > > 
> > > I suppose it does happen, but I have trouble with the
> > > notion of a woman having consensual sex for fun with
> > > more than a couple of guys. If she was a prostitute,
> > > the sex would have been consensual but not (on her part)
> > > for fun.
> > > 
> > > I dunno, just throwing that out as another possibility.
> > 
> > Prostitutes usually have one john at a time. More than two,
> > aren't there to pay for services rendered.
> 
> Well, a pro wouldn't, but a pro would probably not be
> doing it on the grass either. I was thinking more of
> an amateur who would let word get around in town about
> where she'd be that night when she wanted a little
> extra cash, then take on whoever showed up--sort of
> informal and friendly, like a party, except they'd pay
> her. She'd probably know all the guys, and they'd all
> know each other, which would keep things relatively
> safe--they wouldn't want to spoil a good thing.
> 
> I'm just making this up as I go along. I really haven't
> a clue.
>

Exactly, and an interesting fantasy at that. I also thought about her doing it 
in the grass and decided that a pro would have a been better prepared than 
having an impromptu banger in the evening dew. Imagine the laundry. Not gunna 
happen.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> Judy, it has been some time since I read the interaction.

Too bad you missed my post of yesterday in which I quoted
the whole thing, and my post to Xeno that quoted what
Robin said.

But don't worry, I'll post what Robin said here so you
can see what Share means by "psychological rape," if
you choose to:

"You must excuse my presumption here (because it
is very likely I am wrong) but I must tell you that in
this post I get to feel the most Share that is there
severed (perhaps not consciously:)) from her philosophy.
It just *seemed* to me that all you wrote here came out
of your experience unmediated by any final beliefs about
what is real. Like a beautiful accident of Share making
herself available beyond what would be possible were she
solidly, as she almost always is, behind her spiritual
orientation to people and reality (which, in the
weaponry and ordnance deployed by some of us more
irascible FFL posters, is sometimes--silently, mind
you--denigrated as being overly positive--and therefore
impotent:))."

That's it. That's the psychological rape.

If you want to see Share's response to it, in context,
it's here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/342376

Xeno posted a definition of psychological rape:

"Trashing is a particularly vicious form of character assassination which 
amounts to psychological rape. It is manipulative, dishonest, and excessive. It 
is occasionally disguised by the rhetoric of honest conflict, or covered up by 
denying that any disapproval exists at all. But it is not meant to resolve 
differences. It is done to disparage and destroy."

I'm sure you can see how well that describes what Robin
said to Share that I just quoted.

(snip)

I guess you don't have any comment on this part of my
post:

> > And you're aware by now, I'm sure, that her initial reaction
> > to the interaction was that she was feeling a little grumpy
> > from eating too much sugar, "no problemo." And she apologized.
> >
> > Unless she was lying, of course. And boy, if she really had
> > just experienced herself to have been psychologically raped,
> > what a cool customer to apologize to her rapist for being
> > grumpy, and then continue the lighthearted conversation as
> > if nothing had happened.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

> Zee Know is in CC when he posts. A very inefficient reality. Imagine a 
> building with a solid foundation, but lots of scaffolding covering the 
> exterior. Not yet ready to look through the windows at the outside world. :-)

Doc, as I do not experience any witnessing, this must be a particularly inept 
version of CC you are blessing me with. Perhaps it is indeed the long sought 
for comatose consciousness.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > Lying down in the pines
> > > 
> > > RD: Was she conscious or not? Was she face up or face down? Was she 
> > > forced or not forced to lie down? Passively lying down does not imply 
> > > consent. Resisting an inevitable gang rape could mean being severely 
> > > beaten into submission. Had she been beaten into submission?    
> > > 
> > > A gang of boys around her
> > > 
> > > RD: She is surrounded. There is no escape. The boys have an
> > > agenda. The image evokes impending harm. 
> > >  
> > > Some was higgin it
> > > Some was kissin it
> > > Some was huggin it
> > > 
> > > RD: This was the kicker for me. I got emotionally hooked by
> > > the use of the word "it" instead of "her." Whether higgin
> > > or huggin, "IT" implies depersonalization, thus, making it
> > > easier to assault another human being.   
> > >   
> > > Some was kneeling down
> > > 
> > > RD: They weren't saying their prayers. It's an image of guys
> > > getting ready to take turns mounting her...getting ready to 
> > > mount "it."
> > > 
> > > There more rascal hangin round
> > > Try to tear my kingdom down
> > > 
> > > RD: He's pissed she left him, doesn't care she got gang raped
> > > and got the punishment she deserved. He's pissed these guys
> > > had sex with her, a woman who done him wrong by leaving him
> > > and having sex with other men, consensual or not.
> > 
> > Could she have been a prostitute?
> > 
> > I suppose it does happen, but I have trouble with the
> > notion of a woman having consensual sex for fun with
> > more than a couple of guys. If she was a prostitute,
> > the sex would have been consensual but not (on her part)
> > for fun.
> > 
> > I dunno, just throwing that out as another possibility.
> 
> Prostitutes usually have one john at a time. More than two,
> aren't there to pay for services rendered.

Well, a pro wouldn't, but a pro would probably not be
doing it on the grass either. I was thinking more of
an amateur who would let word get around in town about
where she'd be that night when she wanted a little
extra cash, then take on whoever showed up--sort of
informal and friendly, like a party, except they'd pay
her. She'd probably know all the guys, and they'd all
know each other, which would keep things relatively
safe--they wouldn't want to spoil a good thing.

I'm just making this up as I go along. I really haven't
a clue.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > But hey you got the buzz words in so a pat on the head 
> > should be showing up any time now.
> 
> The only thing I can imagine sadder than being the kind
> of person who gets their jollies from "getting" other 
> people they don't even know is the kind of person who 
> admires them, and wants to be like them, and gets 
> *their* jollies striving to get pats on the head 
> from these narcissopaths. 
> 
> I can count at least six on this forum...

Whole lotta patting going on. Have you gotten your pats for the day?
By the way, ever notice how many times you mention how "sad" you are? Why are 
you sad Barry? Here, I am giving you a cyber pat right now. Feel it?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL

[seventhray27]

Judy, it has been some time since I read the interaction.  I am basing
my interpretation on what I know about Share.  And, of course, I see
things differently than you do.   I allow more leeway in people's
reactions, and in peoples motivations than perhaps you do.  Share's
reaction makes sense to me, and it does not to you.

Why it makes sense to me and does not to you is something that has been
played and over played (IMO) out over the past week or so, and several
times over the past few months.  Perhaps you will give me a pass on
revisiting it again .  And if not, that's okay too.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> > My take is that Share felt that the best description of
> > that interaction with Robin was "psychological rape".
>
> Just out of curiosity, did you read the interaction? If so,
> how long ago, would you guess?
>
> And you're aware by now, I'm sure, that her initial reaction
> to the interaction was that she was feeling a little grumpy
> from eating too much sugar, "no problemo." And she apologized.
>
> Unless she was lying, of course. And boy, if she really had
> just experienced herself to have been psychologically raped,
> what a cool customer to apologize to her rapist for being
> grumpy, and then continue the lighthearted conversation as
> if nothing had happened.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: in which Judy changes her gasp mind about Xeno

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Share, what you are missing here is the spirit of what Judy was saying.  
> With respect to Xeno, whether one agrees or disagrees with what his take was, 
> he is stating what he truly thinks - he is being honest about what he thinks. 
>  I thought he should re-evaluate, like I did with the lyrics of the 
> Roustabout song just now.  I do think I misinterpreted the lyrics in the 
> heat of that conversation that occurred at the time.  
> 
> So, you can *trust* Xeno in that he brings his honest self to the forum - 
> whatever that looks like.  He's human.  
> 
> Ann, are you lying in bed naked this morning, thinking about fucking?  
> (Sorry, that's what a 50-year old woman says on a Saturday morning.)  Smile. 
>  

Yoicks! No, alas I don't get to lie in bed in the morning. I am up with the sun 
and attending to the animals (not my husband).
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > From: Ann 
> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> >Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 6:36 AM
> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: in which Judy changes her gasp mind about Xeno
> > 
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >>
> >> dear FFL, on Tuesday April 23, 2013 Xeno was included in the Judy Approved 
> >> People List aka we'll never lie to you or try to mislead you.
> >> On Friday April 26, 2013 it seems that Xeno may have been booted off that 
> >> list.  Xeno, please don't cry.
> >> 
> >> Judy on Tuesday April 23, 2013 about Xeno:
> >> Bottom line, there are people on FFL you can trust, and those you can't. 
> >> The former include (but are not necessarily limited to) Alex, sparaig, 
> >> doctordumbass, Bhairitu, salyavin, laughinggull, Xeno, Ann, Emily, 
> >> raunchy, and me. Some of us may give you a hard time now and then, and 
> >> sometimes we make inadvertent mistakes, but we'll never lie to you or 
> >> try to mislead you.
> >> 
> >> Judy on Friday April 26, 2013 about Xeno:
> >> This is insupportable and unconscionable, Xeno. It's
> >> inexcusable for you to suggest that it describes anything
> >> Robin ever did to Share.
> >> 
> >> and 
> >> 
> >> What is the reason for Xeno's ferocious and utterly 
> >> unreasonable hostility toward Robin in this post?
> >> 
> >> and the best one of all IMHO:
> >> 
> >> Right. It's fine with Xeno for Barry to psychologically
> >> rape Robin just to keep his writing skills honed.
> >> 
> >> God, the hypocrisy and malice are monumental.
> >
> >It's time to fuck off now Share.
> >>
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> My take is that Share felt that the best description of
> that interaction with Robin was "psychological rape".

Just out of curiosity, did you read the interaction? If so,
how long ago, would you guess?

And you're aware by now, I'm sure, that her initial reaction
to the interaction was that she was feeling a little grumpy
from eating too much sugar, "no problemo." And she apologized.

Unless she was lying, of course. And boy, if she really had
just experienced herself to have been psychologically raped,
what a cool customer to apologize to her rapist for being
grumpy, and then continue the lighthearted conversation as
if nothing had happened.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[curtisdeltablues]

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


> Prostitutes usually have one john at a time. More than two, aren't there to 
> pay for services rendered.

Maybe not in Fairfield, but this is kinda standard in Vegas.  It is under 
"group rate" or bachelor party rate.


>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > Lying down in the pines
> > > 
> > > RD: Was she conscious or not? Was she face up or face down? Was she 
> > > forced or not forced to lie down? Passively lying down does not imply 
> > > consent. Resisting an inevitable gang rape could mean being severely 
> > > beaten into submission. Had she been beaten into submission?    
> > > 
> > > A gang of boys around her
> > > 
> > > RD: She is surrounded. There is no escape. The boys have an
> > > agenda. The image evokes impending harm. 
> > >  
> > > Some was higgin it
> > > Some was kissin it
> > > Some was huggin it
> > > 
> > > RD: This was the kicker for me. I got emotionally hooked by
> > > the use of the word "it" instead of "her." Whether higgin
> > > or huggin, "IT" implies depersonalization, thus, making it
> > > easier to assault another human being.   
> > >   
> > > Some was kneeling down
> > > 
> > > RD: They weren't saying their prayers. It's an image of guys
> > > getting ready to take turns mounting her...getting ready to 
> > > mount "it."
> > > 
> > > There more rascal hangin round
> > > Try to tear my kingdom down
> > > 
> > > RD: He's pissed she left him, doesn't care she got gang raped
> > > and got the punishment she deserved. He's pissed these guys
> > > had sex with her, a woman who done him wrong by leaving him
> > > and having sex with other men, consensual or not.
> > 
> > Could she have been a prostitute?
> > 
> > I suppose it does happen, but I have trouble with the
> > notion of a woman having consensual sex for fun with
> > more than a couple of guys. If she was a prostitute,
> > the sex would have been consensual but not (on her part)
> > for fun.
> > 
> > I dunno, just throwing that out as another possibility.
> >
> 
> Prostitutes usually have one john at a time. More than two, aren't there to 
> pay for services rendered.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[curtisdeltablues]

I like it Judy.  It connects to the line:

If I'd listened to what my mama said, I wouldn't be here today.  But me being 
young and foolish too, women led me astray.

His mama would have spotted what she was before he did.

I think you may be on to something here, thanks for that to think about. 

 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> (snip)
> > Lying down in the pines
> > 
> > RD: Was she conscious or not? Was she face up or face down? Was she forced 
> > or not forced to lie down? Passively lying down does not imply consent. 
> > Resisting an inevitable gang rape could mean being severely beaten into 
> > submission. Had she been beaten into submission?    
> > 
> > A gang of boys around her
> > 
> > RD: She is surrounded. There is no escape. The boys have an
> > agenda. The image evokes impending harm. 
> >  
> > Some was higgin it
> > Some was kissin it
> > Some was huggin it
> > 
> > RD: This was the kicker for me. I got emotionally hooked by
> > the use of the word "it" instead of "her." Whether higgin
> > or huggin, "IT" implies depersonalization, thus, making it
> > easier to assault another human being.   
> >   
> > Some was kneeling down
> > 
> > RD: They weren't saying their prayers. It's an image of guys
> > getting ready to take turns mounting her...getting ready to 
> > mount "it."
> > 
> > There more rascal hangin round
> > Try to tear my kingdom down
> > 
> > RD: He's pissed she left him, doesn't care she got gang raped
> > and got the punishment she deserved. He's pissed these guys
> > had sex with her, a woman who done him wrong by leaving him
> > and having sex with other men, consensual or not.
> 
> Could she have been a prostitute?
> 
> I suppose it does happen, but I have trouble with the
> notion of a woman having consensual sex for fun with
> more than a couple of guys. If she was a prostitute,
> the sex would have been consensual but not (on her part)
> for fun.
> 
> I dunno, just throwing that out as another possibility.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> (snip)
> > Lying down in the pines
> > 
> > RD: Was she conscious or not? Was she face up or face down? Was she forced 
> > or not forced to lie down? Passively lying down does not imply consent. 
> > Resisting an inevitable gang rape could mean being severely beaten into 
> > submission. Had she been beaten into submission?    
> > 
> > A gang of boys around her
> > 
> > RD: She is surrounded. There is no escape. The boys have an
> > agenda. The image evokes impending harm. 
> >  
> > Some was higgin it
> > Some was kissin it
> > Some was huggin it
> > 
> > RD: This was the kicker for me. I got emotionally hooked by
> > the use of the word "it" instead of "her." Whether higgin
> > or huggin, "IT" implies depersonalization, thus, making it
> > easier to assault another human being.   
> >   
> > Some was kneeling down
> > 
> > RD: They weren't saying their prayers. It's an image of guys
> > getting ready to take turns mounting her...getting ready to 
> > mount "it."
> > 
> > There more rascal hangin round
> > Try to tear my kingdom down
> > 
> > RD: He's pissed she left him, doesn't care she got gang raped
> > and got the punishment she deserved. He's pissed these guys
> > had sex with her, a woman who done him wrong by leaving him
> > and having sex with other men, consensual or not.
> 
> Could she have been a prostitute?
> 
> I suppose it does happen, but I have trouble with the
> notion of a woman having consensual sex for fun with
> more than a couple of guys. If she was a prostitute,
> the sex would have been consensual but not (on her part)
> for fun.
> 
> I dunno, just throwing that out as another possibility.
>

Prostitutes usually have one john at a time. More than two, aren't there to pay 
for services rendered.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Enemy of Mankind spreading Negativity

[Buck]

Dear FFL, Mr. Moderator Sir;  I wish to submit in to the record for discussion 
a previous testimony given by FFL resident scholar and expert of Sanskrit 
transliteration, our distinguished elder meditating member and linguist from 
Finland.  
Mr. Moderator, please include for our larger consideration the record of the 
testimony given in FFL post number 302944 and its related replies on the topic 
of the correct translation of the Sanskrit of the Saha Nav hymn in to English.  
For our current review of the resolution please admit in to the record this 
link to the post by Cardemaister fra Finland about the more proper translation 
of the TM Saha Nav hymn:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/302944  
Most Respectfully,
-Buck

> 
> FFL,  A Question for the forum: Are there any witnesses present as to the 
> origin of the TM version of the Saha Nav hymn?  When was the Saha Nav hymn 
> first transliterated the way the TM movement uses it?  Lurkers who are 
> without their own exclusive membership with posting privileges are always 
> free to contact and send their testimony to the FFL owner listed at the home 
> page for FFL as a way of being included in FFL. 
> 
> > 
> > Dear FFL, Mr. Moderator Sir, A Point of order; there seems to be a 
> > discrepancy between the proper or correct translation of the Saha Nav hymn 
> > on the one hand and the TM movement's version which was created.  We should 
> > need expert witness as to reconcile the evident difference to the proper or 
> > correct translation of the Saha Nav hymn and the origin of the TM version 
> > used by the TM movement for their purposes.  Could witnesses come forward 
> > to testify as to the facts on the discrepancy?
> > 
> > >
> > > Dear FFL, Mr. Moderator Sir; Let us proceed now directly to the 
> > > discussion of the Saha Nav resolution, The Fairfieldlife Resolution of 
> > > Mutual Respect, otherwise known as the FFL Saha Nav Resolution.
> > > -Buck
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wleed3  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Amen to this buck
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Dear FFL,
> > > > Mr. Moderator Sir; I take this "Amen" of the distinguished elder 
> > > > meditator from Upstate of the Great State of New York as a second to 
> > > > the motion on the Fairfieldlife Resolution of Mutual Respect otherwise 
> > > > known as the FFL Saha Nav Resolution.
> > > -Buck   
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > In a message dated 04/26/13 16:15:50 Eastern Daylight Time, Buck 
> > > > > writes:
> > > > > FFL Moderators, List Owner, Friends; as a motion for consideration, I 
> > > > > move we consider the adoption of the more correct translation of the 
> > > > > Saha Nav hymn as: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The Fairfieldlife (FFL) Resolution of Mutual Respect: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together; 
> > > > > May It nourish us both together; 
> > > > > May we work conjointly with great energy, 
> > > > > May our study be vigorous and effective; 
> > > > > May we not mutually dispute or may we not hate any. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -Buck 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Friends, as a means to have constructive engagement with these 
> > > > > > nay-bobs of anti-meditation negativity here, 
> > > > > > In process first we need to enact a FFL resolution of mutual 
> > > > > > respect 
> > > > > > to have something in all our favor to rally around to enforce 
> > > > > > against the anti-meditators here.  As a motion of consideration I 
> > > > > > hereby move the adoption of the 
> > > > > > The FFL Saha Nav Resolution. 
> > > > > > For top banner publication across the FFL homepage. 
> > > > > > -Buck 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I feel it is quite time to invoke emergency measures here to 
> > > > > > > protect the integrity of FFL as a public and spiritual forum.  
> > > > > > > Though I do not look for this position, but as it is now brought 
> > > > > > > to us and if however brought and placed by a loyal Unified Field 
> > > > > > > of FFL into a position of authority to wrought out the necessary 
> > > > > > > positive change to FFL security I should willingly step forward 
> > > > > > > and volunteer if drafted by the community to serve as a channel 
> > > > > > > to help with this great task.  I look to all your support with 
> > > > > > > this great endeavor to make FFL a spiritually safe place once 
> > > > > > > again.   
> > > > > > > -Buck 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Yes, considering TM as being under a general blog internet 
> > > > > > > > attack here and its ongoing specious forms of persistent FFL 
> > > > > > > > anti-meditation bush-whacking terrorism; not withstanding, 
> > > > > > > > there are clearly some anti-meditation radicals trying to live 
> > > > > > > > here among us who would blow u

[FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[curtisdeltablues]

It is songwriting and your take on the song is your right.  I think you are 
missing an important point that the guy wrote the song, it is not a CNN 
reporting of an event. so a consistent POV is an important aspect to analyzing 
what the author intended. You are approaching it from a completely different 
angle than a musician performing it, who has to interpret the song by entering 
the POV of its author.  You are being as judgmental as any person hearing the 
song is welcome to be about the author.  I have a different agenda, I want to 
tell his story truthfully from HIS POV.  That is what my preservation job 
demands of me. I have performed it believing that she was raped and that she 
wasn't.  Although it is different internally they are both at a 10 emotionally. 
 This is a tragedy no matter which interpretation you choose.  And it feels 
that way to sing it.

But I object to this:

"at first blush I thought his retrospective was a tad self-serving."

What the fuck could you possibly mean by this?  I didn't write the song, I am 
not the subject of the song.  I am a preservationist who views this song as a 
critical piece of American musical history that links the use of the banjo by 
the African Americans who brought this instrument to our shores.  I am trying 
to understand the song as best as I can.

Self-serving in WHAT way?  Your predisposition to use everything as evidence 
that I am not a good person has betrayed you here.  

"it felt like spin to me", 

Spin of WHAT? Do you think I am pro gang rape?  Don't you think that if I 
believed that rape was its topic that I would just embrace that fact as 
something I had to deal with in the song too?  Do you really believe I have a 
personal investment in how this author comes out?  Do you think I might need to 
cover for a brother?  WTF?

There is no "self" for me to serve.  If you had just weighed in with your 
opinion on the song's meaning, you could have contributed to the discussion.  
But instead you took the low road and couldn't resist using it to bash me.  
Shitty choice. You are a poet who should know better.

I don't believe that this song is as driven by black culture as Emily did.  I 
think it is a more universal theme.  It is written by one guy who is interested 
in expressing HIS own POV.  That helps me piece together the consistency of HIS 
story, whether I agree with it or not.

I believe that the Hugging "IT" is a bad transcription.  I hear Some was 
hugging and some was kissing with no "it".  I believe your interpretation based 
on that was a stretch anyway. He loved her and shoed her pretty little feet and 
gloved her hand. She is leaving him.

No woman submits to "gang rape" obviously, but do you believe that no woman 
submits to group sex with a bunch of men at one time?  You should get out more. 
 Some do.  And when they do, it is not unusual for them to have a bit of 
payback in the mix. I am not condoning it or saying it is a self-esteem 
building choice.  But for some it is a choice. It would have been so easy for 
the author to add a hint of coercion.  He did not for a reason. And it may be 
that we are supposed to be conflicted about what really happened.  Maybe this 
ambiguity was intentional.  He may be playing our human emotions like a master. 
 Or it may be the result of shitty transcriptions from bad recordings that 
missed key words that would make it obvious.  This is the world of playing old 
songs that I live in.  We don't always know.   

This is a song, it is not a documentary of a real person's life.  It is 
exaggerated for effect.  The main thing is to stay connected to an author with 
a POV he is sharing in the song.  Otherwise we get caught up in our own stuff 
that has nothing to do with his intentions.  The chick in the story didn't 
write it.  The guy did.  Did he really just see her kissing another man and 
cooked up the whole gang scenario to play on our sympathies? We don't know.

The only part of your analysis I really liked was your nail down on "pine".  
That was beautiful and I missed it. Thanks. 



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
> >
> > Raunchy, I think Curtis is correct in his interpretation, in terms of 
> > historical context and what the author of those lyrics was intending to 
> > communicate to his audience, at least that's how it hits me in the moment 
> > this morning.  The song lyrics contain, of course, a cultural element and 
> > there are many blues songs that speak to the black man loving his woman and 
> > how she "done him wrong", etc., etc.  The black culture also brings a 
> > different attitude towards sexuality than our puritan caucasian one does 
> > and it speaks to that as well.  And in the black culture, it is true that 
> > the woman is in charge.  Smile.    
> > 
> 
> I hadn't followed this thread, so when I read the lyrics this morning, I had 
> a visceral reaction of rev

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote:
> For a person to express something about how another's post feels to
them is one thing. I do it all the time, on here. But to make the other
person responsible for such a feeling, is ultimately irresponsible. Do
you see it differently?

My take is that Share felt that the best description of that interaction
with Robin was "psychological rape".

I don't think she feels she was victimized, any more that I might have
felt when Robin played the same number on me.

You think you are interacting with someone along more normal paramters,
more of a mutual give and take, but Robin brings to the table a
different approach.

People may feel that it is an awesome approach designed to help them
break through some boundries that need to be broken, or people may feel
it is an unwarranted intrusion into their personal space.  I think it is
as simple as that.

And if someone wished to describe that intrusion  as "psychological
rape", well then, that is their perogative, and I don't see that it is
that big of a deal.  But others may feel differently.

I think Share reacted well within what would be considered a normal
reaction.  And if she was knocked off balance for a (very) short time,
then that is also understandable and I would say she bounced back pretty
quickly and would have been ready to move on if not
for..

My apologies, if I have taken any liberties into Share's thought
processes.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
(snip)
> Lying down in the pines
> 
> RD: Was she conscious or not? Was she face up or face down? Was she forced or 
> not forced to lie down? Passively lying down does not imply consent. 
> Resisting an inevitable gang rape could mean being severely beaten into 
> submission. Had she been beaten into submission?    
> 
> A gang of boys around her
> 
> RD: She is surrounded. There is no escape. The boys have an
> agenda. The image evokes impending harm. 
>  
> Some was higgin it
> Some was kissin it
> Some was huggin it
> 
> RD: This was the kicker for me. I got emotionally hooked by
> the use of the word "it" instead of "her." Whether higgin
> or huggin, "IT" implies depersonalization, thus, making it
> easier to assault another human being.   
>   
> Some was kneeling down
> 
> RD: They weren't saying their prayers. It's an image of guys
> getting ready to take turns mounting her...getting ready to 
> mount "it."
> 
> There more rascal hangin round
> Try to tear my kingdom down
> 
> RD: He's pissed she left him, doesn't care she got gang raped
> and got the punishment she deserved. He's pissed these guys
> had sex with her, a woman who done him wrong by leaving him
> and having sex with other men, consensual or not.

Could she have been a prostitute?

I suppose it does happen, but I have trouble with the
notion of a woman having consensual sex for fun with
more than a couple of guys. If she was a prostitute,
the sex would have been consensual but not (on her part)
for fun.

I dunno, just throwing that out as another possibility.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Raunchy, I think Curtis is correct in his interpretation, in terms of 
> historical context and what the author of those lyrics was intending to 
> communicate to his audience, at least that's how it hits me in the moment 
> this morning.  The song lyrics contain, of course, a cultural element and 
> there are many blues songs that speak to the black man loving his woman and 
> how she "done him wrong", etc., etc.  The black culture also brings a 
> different attitude towards sexuality than our puritan caucasian one does and 
> it speaks to that as well.  And in the black culture, it is true that the 
> woman is in charge.  Smile.    
> 

I hadn't followed this thread, so when I read the lyrics this morning, I had a 
visceral reaction of revulsion to what evoked an image of gang rape. I din't 
buy Curtis' GF's take that it was not rape but "a woman in her power blowing 
off her husband and living a hedonistic fantasy." Your initial reaction that 
the lyrics were more sinister may have been similar to mine. I didn't take time 
to explain how I felt about the lyrics to Curtis, first because I didn't have 
the time and second, at first blush I thought his retrospective was a tad 
self-serving. Perhaps I was wrong about Curtis' motivations as he claims. 
Regardless, it felt like spin to me, so c'est la vie.  

But now that you agree with Curtis' interpretation and added an attempted layer 
of understanding on black culture, I'll take a shot at explaining why I reacted 
to the lyrics as I did. True, the woman "done him wrong" but as I see it, in no 
culture does a woman consent to gang rape, ever, and certainly not just to piss 
off a cuckolded spouse. Further, I don't believe that black women are any more 
capable of owing their sexual power than white women, and seems rather 
stereotypical.   

No doubt the guy feels victimized wallowing in "poor me" as Curtis suggests, 
but no matter the cultural background, I don't believe the lyrics imply that 
the woman, vis a vis the man's property, was having consensual sex with a gang 
of men. I could be accused of putting my white girl judgement on the lyrics, 
but in this case, I think not.  So here's my interpretation:  

Oh you banjo roustabout
When you goin to the shore
I got a good gal on that other shore
Baby don't you want to go

RD: He wishes his woman could go with him but since she can't, he expresses a 
pang of guilt for cheating on her, "Oh you banjo roustabout," says he, in 
slightly humorous self-deprecation, but, "Oh well, a man has needs and I'm just 
missing you, Baby."  

If I had an old pairs of wings
Like Noah's dove
I'd sail from pine to pine
Looking for my own true love

Indeed, he misses his woman. Noah's dove is a wonderful metaphor. He's on the 
sea without sight of shore for many days, and perhaps "pine" is a pun for 
longing.

I'd a listened to what my momma said
I wouldn't be here today
But me being young and foolish too
women lead me astray

RD: He regrets he didn't listen to his momma telling him not to womanize but 
rather than take responsibility, he blames women for leading him astray. 

Who's gonna shoe your pretty little feet
And who's gonna glove your hand
And who's gonna do your rockabye
When your man's in a distant land

RD: Again, expressing his love and longing but perhaps he loves best from afar, 
imagining all the things he believes he as a husband should do but doesn't.

My wife left home last night

RD: Yep, that's what you get for being a lout.

I'll tell you where I found her

RD: He went looking for her and wants us to know he wasn't pleased with what he 
saw. 

Lying down in the pines

RD: Was she conscious or not? Was she face up or face down? Was she forced or 
not forced to lie down? Passively lying down does not imply consent. Resisting 
an inevitable gang rape could mean being severely beaten into submission. Had 
she been beaten into submission?    

A gang of boys around her

RD: She is surrounded. There is no escape. The boys have an agenda. The image 
evokes impending harm. 
 
Some was higgin it
Some was kissin it
Some was huggin it

RD: This was the kicker for me. I got emotionally hooked by the use of the word 
"it" instead of "her." Whether higgin or huggin, "IT" implies 
depersonalization, thus, making it easier to assault another human being.   
  
Some was kneeling down

RD: They weren't saying their prayers. It's an image of guys getting ready to 
take turns mounting her...getting ready to mount "it."

There more rascal hangin round
Try to tear my kingdom down

RD: He's pissed she left him, doesn't care she got gang raped and got the 
punishment she deserved. He's pissed these guys had sex with her, a woman who 
done him wrong by leaving him and having sex with other men, consensual or not. 
 It's all about *him,* his kingdom, his wounded pride and having to live down 
the shame of other men, rascals he probably knows, having sex with hi

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> 
> Judy, this is really funny to me, to see, (in your mind) how
> much lower Share can sink.  I mean it was probably six months
> ago, or maybe a year ago, when she couldn't "sink any lower"

Ah, no, so sorry, Stevie, but you're remembering incorrectly
once again.



, but each week she seems to
> plumb those  depths, (in your mind, of course)
> 
> And, although it pains me to say so, it reminds me of someone like Shaun
> Hannidy, (whenever I catch a tiny piece of his broadcast) when he talks
> about how "really low" Obama has sunk this time.
> 
> Its very unattractive.
> 
> You do, on occassion find something positive to say about Share.  I
> think you should practice trying to say more positive things about
> everyone.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > One day I ate sugar and months later Ann removes the word
> > > psychological from the Dreaded Phrase.
> >
> > Oh, yeah, that was what you had a faux freakout about,
> > pretending Ann had done something just *awful*, and I
> > asked if you could sink any lower, as I recall. But
> > you didn't answer, so I guess the answer is yes.
> >
> > Xeno did the same thing in his latest post, as you know.
> >
> > I don't think it was the sugar, BTW.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote:
> >
> > Hey Steve, I am always open to dialogue, when dialogue is initiated.
> >
> > The only difference between Share's approach and mine, is
> > that it took awhile for Share to sense she didn't like the
> > direction of Robin's questions, and when she recognized it,
> > rather than see it as her failure to set appropriate
> > boundaries for herself, she laid it on Robin.
> 
> Right, that's the narrative put forth by Judy.

No, actually that's DrD's narrative.

> If you wish to go
> strictly by a timeline, it may appear that way, but that is
> not the way I see the truth of it.  On the other hand, I do
> not wish to speak for Share.

I assume by "timeline" you mean what she said in her posts
and when. If what she said in those posts was different from
what she was thinking, she could clear it up at any time by
telling us what was in her mind. I've asked her to explain
the timeline--including the odd discrepancies and outright
contradictions in her posts--many times, but she declines to
do so.

I gather she has shared her thoughts with you, and that you
know they don't reflect what she said in her posts. Perhaps
you could suggest to her that she come clean and end all the
speculation.

Or does she believe the truth would reflect badly on her?
And perhaps even worse on others?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape

[seventhray27]

Judy, this is really funny to me, to see, (in your mind) how much lower
Share can sink.  I mean it was probably six months ago, or maybe a year
ago, when she couldn't "sink any lower", but each week she seems to
plumb those  depths, (in your mind, of course)

And, although it pains me to say so, it reminds me of someone like Shaun
Hannidy, (whenever I catch a tiny piece of his broadcast) when he talks
about how "really low" Obama has sunk this time.

Its very unattractive.

You do, on occassion find something positive to say about Share.  I
think you should practice trying to say more positive things about
everyone.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
> (snip)
> > One day I ate sugar and months later Ann removes the word
> > psychological from the Dreaded Phrase.
>
> Oh, yeah, that was what you had a faux freakout about,
> pretending Ann had done something just *awful*, and I
> asked if you could sink any lower, as I recall. But
> you didn't answer, so I guess the answer is yes.
>
> Xeno did the same thing in his latest post, as you know.
>
> I don't think it was the sugar, BTW.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
(snip)
> One day I ate sugar and months later Ann removes the word 
> psychological from the Dreaded Phrase.

Oh, yeah, that was what you had a faux freakout about,
pretending Ann had done something just *awful*, and I
asked if you could sink any lower, as I recall. But
you didn't answer, so I guess the answer is yes.

Xeno did the same thing in his latest post, as you know.

I don't think it was the sugar, BTW.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape

[Share Long]

XENO!  I posted the news item about Twinkies making a comeback on Friday 
evening with your name in Subject line!  Oh well...
Yes, I think when I ate sugar one day, it was like the flapping of a 
butterfly's wings in Japan that causes a roof shingle to fall and conk a 
squirrel on the head in Cleveland.  One day I ate sugar and months later Ann 
removes the word psychological from the Dreaded Phrase.  However I think in 
your case it was the shock of the impending comeback of Twinkies that caused 
you to do the same.  Forsooth and forsythia!  


Doc, cringing at being likened to a clam, I'm gonna use part of Xeno's 
analogy anyway.  Now imagine our little clam not only having an evasively 
prodding starfish to contend with, but also a big crab with sharp claws 
and a bunch of slithery stingrays jabbing at her with their acidy 
tendrils.  No wonder she blew a gasket and dropped a bomb on all of 
them!  Psychologically raped!  Then a wonderful pod of dolphins arrived 
and told our little clam that her bomb was on target.  
   
The evasively prodding starfish has disappeared.  Nonetheless the big crab 
with sharp claws and slithery stingrays with acidy tendrils are still 
jabbing away at our little clam who has by now both toughened up and 
lightened up.  Stay tuned (-:



 From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:42 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape
 


  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> dear FFL, on Tuesday April 23, 2013 Xeno was included in the Judy Approved 
> People List aka we'll never lie to you or try to mislead you.
> On Friday April 26, 2013 it seems that Xeno may have been booted off that 
> list.? Xeno, please don't cry.
> 
> Judy on Tuesday April 23, 2013 about Xeno:
> Bottom line, there are people on FFL you can trust, and those you can't. The 
> former include (but are not necessarily limited to) Alex, sparaig, 
> doctordumbass, Bhairitu, salyavin, laughinggull, Xeno, Ann, Emily, 
> raunchy, and me. Some of us may give you a hard time now and then, and 
> sometimes we make inadvertent mistakes, but we'll never lie to you or 
> try to mislead you.
> 
> Judy on Friday April 26, 2013 about Xeno:
> This is insupportable and unconscionable, Xeno. It's
> inexcusable for you to suggest that it describes anything
> Robin ever did to Share.
> 
> and 
> 
> What is the reason for Xeno's ferocious and utterly 
> unreasonable hostility toward Robin in this post?
> 
> and the best one of all IMHO:
> 
> Right. It's fine with Xeno for Barry to psychologically
> rape Robin just to keep his writing skills honed.
> 
> God, the hypocrisy and malice are monumental.
>
I thought I would reply via this post by Share. 

It's short, but a number of others posted 'replies', Emily, Judy, Ann, and 
Ravi, and so this post is not directed individually and is not a reply to Share 
except for two comments, but she quoted Judy, as I did not read Judy's post in 
any detail (not because I intend to ignore it a la Barry, but I just do not 
have time), it simplifies what I might respond to here. I read Emily's post 
through - a very thoughtful response; obviously we are clearly not on the same 
wavelength. Ann commented basically on Emily's post, although Ann should be 
aware she was not having an NDE, as that involves loss of blood to the brain, 
and in that case, the brain and thinking does not work very well, and one has 
hallucinations which are interpreted as 'the other side' by some. Judy went 
directly after me as did Ravi.

Share was correct (post #342341) in that I did not write the post for her 
benefit. I was rather in my own little world as I wrote this. A certain poster 
on this forum suggested I write something about that quote from Ms. magazine, 
and I put it off for a while. So the post 'Psychological Rape' (post #342326) 
was written when I was in a rather abstract space. I was not looking at many 
older posts, and I was basically just enjoying writing and reviewing my memory 
of interacting with Robin. 

There have been times when I criticised Judy for expressing certain emotions in 
her writing. She claimed she was not experiencing those emotions when she wrote 
those posts. Now here she attributes certain motivations and emotional values 
to me, but that is hardly what I was feeling when I wrote this post under 
discussion here. Rather she attributed basically conventional emotive behaviour 
as a result of conventional meanings of the words I wrote, and how those words 
seemed to be directed. 

Judy probably does not think of herself as a vile, disgusting hate monger as 
say characterised in turquoiseb's tomes that refer to her. She is probably 
having fun dishing it out to those of us with which she disagrees. Exactly what 
emotions she truly experiences when she writes this is not for me to discern. 
She would have to tell me, and I would have to believe her, I still would no

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL

[doctordumbass]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Doc, cringing at being likened to a clam, I'm gonna use part of Xeno's 
> analogy.

Zee Know is in CC when he posts. A very inefficient reality. Imagine a building 
with a solid foundation, but lots of scaffolding covering the exterior. Not yet 
ready to look through the windows at the outside world. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Post Count Sun 28-Apr-13 00:15:03 UTC

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): 04/27/13 00:00:00
End Date (UTC): 05/04/13 00:00:00
135 messages as of (UTC) 04/27/13 23:36:52

24 authfriend 
19 seventhray27 
16 Emily Reyn 
13 Ravi Chivukula 
 8 curtisdeltablues 
 8 Buck 
 7 Michael Jackson 
 6 Ann 
 5 card 
 5 Share Long 
 4 Bhairitu 
 3 turquoiseb 
 3 doctordumbass
 3 Mike Dixon 
 3 Alex Stanley 
 2 salyavin808 
 2 Susan 
 1 raunchydog 
 1 martin.quickman 
 1 feste37 
 1 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
Posters: 21
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - were you trying to PR me?

[doctordumbass]

It has gotten so bad that I won't even go to the restroom without imagining 
your approval. But it makes me feel like I belong, so I am willing to make the 
trade. I am pit-bulling Curtis and Barry for the time being, but please let me 
know if and when I should readjust my targets, as I long ago gave up a mind of 
my own. There, I said it. Don't be hating, peeps.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> (snip)
> (to Ravi)
> > You think you are "getting" a person Judy does not like
> > and winning her approval, but instead you are revealing
> > yourself and your shallow agenda.
> 
> This old chestnut just cracks me up. I only *wish* I
> had the kind of power to influence others that Curtis
> and his buddies attribute to me.
> 
> Yes, it's sad. Nobody would ever say anything negative
> about Curtis or Barry or Share, etc., if it weren't for
> the fact that folks are desperate for my approval.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" 
 wrote:
(snip)
> I did not read Judy's post in any detail
(snip)
> Judy finds what I say 'insupportable and unconscionable'; I
> would say she does not illuminate, does not open up the
> discussion

Perhaps you should have read my post in detail. (Perhaps,
in fact, you shouldn't really be commenting on it at all
if you did not.)

> one is, if on the wrong end of her view, simply and
> utterly wrong, there is no potential for redemption or
> discussion.

There was plenty of potential for discussion, but you
would have to have read the post to know about it.
("Redemption," I don't know, it would depend on how you
reacted to all the information I provided you with.)

(snip>
> In the past he seemed to have really messed with peoples'
> minds, and was quite capable of doing that. My suspicion
> is he still does, but perhaps in a more mollified way.
> Judy, Emily, and Ann do not seem to share this suspicion
> of mine. But then, some stay with an abusive spouse or
> partner, always thinking that the problem is their fault.

Right, but since Emily, Ann, and I have not experienced
abuse from Robin, how would this last be relevant?

(snip)
> Judy often accuses [Curtis] of context shifting. As far
> as I can tell, everyone does that. It is those grooves
> and conditioned responses the mind has. We are unable
> to not shift the context of an argument.

"As far as I can tell" are the key words here. That Curtis
is doing something different from what everyone else does
does not become evident until one becomes involved in a
hostile debate with him (as I've pointed out here over and
over). When it's *your* context he's shifting, you know it
isn't like what others do. (Otherwise, it wouldn't, you
know, be an issue.)

(snip>
> By the way, if you are reading this Share, Twinkies are
> coming back. Maybe all of this discussion about rape was
> the result of sugar you had one day.
>
> http://now.msn.com/twinkies-returning-in-july

(Let's see if Share screams at you for referring to "rape"
instead of "psychological rape," as she did at Ann. I'm
guessing she won't.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> dear FFL, on Tuesday April 23, 2013 Xeno was included in the Judy Approved 
> People List aka we'll never lie to you or try to mislead you.
> On Friday April 26, 2013 it seems that Xeno may have been booted off that 
> list.? Xeno, please don't cry.
> 
> Judy on Tuesday April 23, 2013 about Xeno:
> Bottom line, there are people on FFL you can trust, and those you can't. The 
> former include (but are not necessarily limited to) Alex, sparaig, 
> doctordumbass, Bhairitu, salyavin, laughinggull, Xeno, Ann, Emily, 
> raunchy, and me. Some of us may give you a hard time now and then, and 
> sometimes we make inadvertent mistakes, but we'll never lie to you or 
> try to mislead you.
> 
> Judy on Friday April 26, 2013 about Xeno:
> This is insupportable and unconscionable, Xeno. It's
> inexcusable for you to suggest that it describes anything
> Robin ever did to Share.
> 
> and 
> 
> What is the reason for Xeno's ferocious and utterly 
> unreasonable hostility toward Robin in this post?
> 
> and the best one of all IMHO:
> 
> Right. It's fine with Xeno for Barry to psychologically
> rape Robin just to keep his writing skills honed.
> 
> God, the hypocrisy and malice are monumental.
>
I thought I would reply via this post by Share. 

It's short, but a number of others posted 'replies', Emily, Judy, Ann, and 
Ravi, and so this post is not directed individually and is not a reply to Share 
except for two comments, but she quoted Judy, as I did not read Judy's post in 
any detail (not because I intend to ignore it a la Barry, but I just do not 
have time), it simplifies what I might respond to here. I read Emily's post 
through - a very thoughtful response; obviously we are clearly not on the same 
wavelength. Ann commented basically on Emily's post, although Ann should be 
aware she was not having an NDE, as that involves loss of blood to the brain, 
and in that case, the brain and thinking does not work very well, and one has 
hallucinations which are interpreted as 'the other side' by some. Judy went 
directly after me as did Ravi.

Share was correct (post #342341) in that I did not write the post for her 
benefit. I was rather in my own little world as I wrote this. A certain poster 
on this forum suggested I write something about that quote from Ms. magazine, 
and I put it off for a while. So the post 'Psychological Rape' (post #342326) 
was written when I was in a rather abstract space. I was not looking at many 
older posts, and I was basically just enjoying writing and reviewing my memory 
of interacting with Robin. 

There have been times when I criticised Judy for expressing certain emotions in 
her writing. She claimed she was not experiencing those emotions when she wrote 
those posts. Now here she attributes certain motivations and emotional values 
to me, but that is hardly what I was feeling when I wrote this post under 
discussion here. Rather she attributed basically conventional emotive behaviour 
as a result of conventional meanings of the words I wrote, and how those words 
seemed to be directed. 

Judy probably does not think of herself as a vile, disgusting hate monger as 
say characterised in turquoiseb's tomes that refer to her. She is probably 
having fun dishing it out to those of us with which she disagrees. Exactly what 
emotions she truly experiences when she writes this is not for me to discern. 
She would have to tell me, and I would have to believe her, I still would not 
have that internal experience that we call 'Judy' to be able know what she 
experienced. I would have a representation of it, a pointer to it, but not be 
able to access the source.

By virtue of what she said, I could make guesses as to her emotional reaction 
to what I wrote, but in the past, when she has said something about this, as I 
said, what she said did not agree with my analysis, just as here, her seemingly 
attributing certain motives to what I wrote did not correspond to what I was 
feeling at the time I wrote it.

>From the comments made by Judy that Share quoted above I have

1. 'ferocious and utterly unreasonable 
   hostility toward Robin'

2. Apparently I ought to be more sensitive 
   to Barry's psychological rape of Robin

3. I have monumental hypocrisy and malice

4. My behaviour is 'inexcusable' in that my 
   description has nothing to do with what 
   Robin did to Share.

First of all, my 'knowledge' of Robin comes entirely from second hand sources, 
third hand sources, most of it what people have said about him here on FFL, and 
from things written by Robin here. I have never met Robin. I would not know him 
on the street. I do not know what he is like in person. My entire sense of him 
comes from the data set here. I do not even know with 100% certainly (though it 
seems likely to me) that what was posted here under the name maskedzebra, is 
from Robin. He is up to this point in time, simply thoughts in my head, and 
text on a scre

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
>
> Doc, cringing at being likened to a clam, I'm gonna use part of Xeno's
analogy.  Now imagine our little clam not only having an evasively
prodding starfish to contend with, but also a big crab with sharp claws
and a bunch of slithery stingrays jabbing at her with their acidy
tendrils.  No wonder she blew a gasket and dropped a bomb on all of
them!  Psychologically raped!  Then a wonderful pod of dolphins
arrived and told our little clam that her bomb was on target.

I think that Doc may miss that for the most part we try to be conjenial
here, we try to keep an open mind, we like to give others the benefit of
the doubt.  And then if it happens that someone who appears to be on the
up and up,  turns out not to be, we may feel, well, it may feel like, I
mean someone might describe it as being "psychlogically raped"

Seems pretty straightforward to me, and hey, it's not the horrific term
that some are trying to make it out to be.  It could just be an excuse
to go after someone for other reasons.





Â
> Â Â
>
> The evasively prodding starfish has disappeared.  Nonetheless the
big crab with sharp claws and slithery stingrays with acidy tendrils are
still jabbing away at our little clam who has by now both toughened up
and lightened up.  Stay tuned (-:
>
> feste, I think you're right.  But I'm an idiot and continue to
engage.  Though I think I'm more discerning about it now.  Thank
you for your encouragement.
>
> Emily, I think Robin's prodding at my philosophy is more a mental
prodding than an emotional one but both kinds  have occurred IMO.
>
>
> 
> From: "doctordumbass@..." doctordumbass@...
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 10:03 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL
>
>
>
> Â
> Hi Share,
> I have been reading through all these messages over this original
expression of yours. I honestly do not see how it is possible on a
public forum with neither person physically known to the other, with no
prior relationship at all, for someone to psychologically ultimately
violate another person.
>
> If someone addresses you in a way you don't like, then respond by all
means, in terms of yourself. No need to place the burden of your
feelings on the forum poster. And, again, this is a public Internet
forum. As you said yourself, you didn't have a relationship with Robin.
>
> Why not say at the time, "Hey Robin, you do not have the right to ask
me such questions. I am comfortable working on this on my own."?
> By casting a label of absolute power on him solves nothing. Not only
is it not true, it doesn't really establish your boundary of personal
power.
>
> Forums are very interesting entities, moved by thought power alone,
observation and response. Anyone contributing has absolute power over
their identity here, including you, and including Robin. There is
nothing easier.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
> >
> > Xeno, I've been out of town today.  Shopping for my foray
into the big city.  Thank you for this even though I know you did
not write it for me or for my big, fat, stupid ego.  Hope you
won't gag when I say how healing this is for me to read.  Oy,
more ego!  What you did here, the time and attention you put into
it, really feels like a labor of love, love for what is.  I
didn't even freak out too much when I read that I did say
psychologically raped instead of rape.  But I remember how I
felt, especially at that point in time when ego had been invaded
uninvited and pulverized for a few weeks and not only by Robin. 
Extremely upset and still reeling from events I'd never experienced
before.  So out popped a phrase that I had not used before nor
that was so familiar too me.  But felt spot on
nonetheless.ÂÂ
> >
> >
> > I'm so grateful that I'm gonna shut up now (-:
> >
> >
> > 
> > From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 1:00 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Psychological Rape
> >
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> > Psychological rape is a term that does not seem to have much of a
fixed professional definition in psychology. It sometimes is applied to
parents who drug their children to keep them under control. On a common
sense level, the term would seem to imply a kind of invasiveness into
one's private space. That private space is the ego, our sense of
individuality and self. There are other private spaces, such as the
experience that some call transcendental consciousness, which at a
certain point in practice, seems deep inside. But this space (TC) has no
characteristics other than the sense of wakefulness, so it really does
not do anything, or provide one with an individual identity; it has no
identity other than bare existence, it is neither private or public,
though the experience se

[FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[seventhray27]

Emily, I want you to know that I got a lot of pleasure out of that
George Jones video you posted yesterday.  There were so many nuances
about it that I enjoyed.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote:
>
> Excellent Curtis. Â Really interesting. Â I had no idea the
considerations that go into what you do and how you look at the lyrics,
etc. and who your audience is. Â I'm not a musician. Â
>
> Re: the rest of it...we're clear. Â I sent you my angst about the
term "gang rape" and yes, I was trying to do it in a riff. Â (I
didn't pull out the FOAD acronym - imagine the "Fuck you, man, fuck you"
delivered by a comedian onstage).Â
>
> Yes, I pulled the lyrics and posted them because I was confused as to
your point to me that day. But, I'm glad I did, because the higher
energy/spirit of the music ultimately triumphed over potential hurt
feelings on my part. Â You made amends in my mind, through
acknowledging your use of that term and going to the effort to post an
analysis of the song and then another, the one below.
>
> These songs are great in one way because they reflect the reality of
the day, the relationship issues that existed, attitudes, feelings, etc.
 in the black culture.  Not all positive, that is for sure. Â
But, often respectful, in a way, because women are recognized as a force
of nature in their culture/community. Â Look that the relationship of
the black man to his mama still - not that it's always healthy, but it
ain't no joke. Â  Â
>
> Gotta go for the day. Â Speaking of women, love this one. Â I'm
smiling. Â Ha. Â
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7MhGtJTXjg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > From: curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 9:51 AM
> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song
> >
> >
> >
> >Â
> >I appreciate that Emily as well as your response to Raunchy's post.
> >
> >Great art is provocative and this discussion has deepened my respect
for the lyrics.
> >
> >I also think that your mentioning the cultural context IS key to
understanding the intent of the author.
> >
> >I run into this decision often in singing songs from a different
historical and cultural context. Just last night I sang Robert Johnson's
Me and the Devil"
> >
> >( I am going to point our a verse but the content is not being
directed toward you!)
> >
> >I love the song because it shows how bold Robert was about the
concept of the devil which had many of his contemporaries cowered down
in fear. Here it is and you will immediately see the problem for modern
audiences:
> >
> >Early this mornin'
> >when you knocked upon my door
> >Early this mornin', ooh
> >when you knocked upon my door
> >And I said, "Hello, Satan,"
> >I believe it's time to go."
> >
> >Me and the Devil
> >was walkin' side by side
> >Me and the Devil, ooh
> >was walkin' side by side
> >And I'm goin' to beat my woman
> >until I get satisfied
> >
> >She say you don't see why
> >that I will dog her 'round
> >spoken: Now, babe, you know you ain't doin' me
> >right, don'cha
> >She say you don't see why, ooh
> >that I will dog her 'round
> >It must-a be that old evil spirit
> >so deep down in the ground
> >
> >You may bury my body
> >down by the highway side
> >spoken: Baby, I don't care where you bury my
> >body when I'm dead and gone
> >You may bury my body, ooh
> >down by the highway side
> >So my old evil spirit
> >can catch a Greyhound bus and ride
> >
> >For Robert this was a comedic song with the line "I'm gunna beat my
woman till I get satisfied" pulling the biggest laugh from an audience
that was more along the lines of Ralph Cramdon making a fist and saying
"one of these days Alice, straight to the moon". Today this is all over
the top creepy, we know too much. But in Robert's day women beating men
were also common. (It was a big problem for Charley Patton with Bertha
Lee who was considerably bigger and stronger and usually less drunk.)
> >
> >So of course I can't explain all this as the audience turns on me for
singing such a lyric so I change it to:
> >
> >"I'm gunna do my woman till we both get satisfied" to make sure that
there is not misunderstanding even adding "both".
> >
> >But here is the problem artistically. I wreck the song's comedic
intention about the battle of the sexes and turn it into some kind of
sexual bravado bragging. It wrecks the meaning of the next verses.
> >
> >"She say you don't see why
> >that I will dog her 'round "
> >
> >Then he blames it on the devil:
> >
> >It must-a be that old evil spirit
> >so deep down in the ground
> >
> >I can get a laugh out of a modern audience here by saying that he is
blaming his bad behavior on the devil but I don't think that worked any
better back then as it does today. This restores some of the original
snarky intention of the lyrics that I stepped on my making it more
politically correct.
> >
> >More trouble in bluesman city: "Big fat woman" lyrics and the ev

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
(snip)
> The evasively prodding starfish has disappeared. Nonetheless
> the big crab with sharp claws and slithery stingrays with
> acidy tendrils are still jabbing away at our little clam who
> has by now both toughened up and lightened up. Stay tuned (-:

Let's see whatcha got, chickie-boo. From everything I've
seen so far, the harder you fight against reality, the
worse you end up looking. So go to it, but remember,
reality always wins. Now, isn't *that* a scary thought for
our little clam!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[seventhray27]

Curtis, this is fascinating.  Even just this bit I think would be a
valuable part of a college curricula on black studies.  Or certainly any
study of the Blues.

And especially how it must be adapted to current sensibilities.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote:
>
> I appreciate that Emily as well as your response to Raunchy's post.
>
> Great art is provocative and this discussion has deepened my respect
for the lyrics.
>
> I also think that your mentioning the cultural context IS key to
understanding the intent of the author.
>
> I run into this decision often in singing songs from a different
historical and cultural context. Just last night I sang Robert Johnson's
Me and the Devil"
>
> ( I am going to point our a verse but the content is not being
directed toward you!)
>
> I love the song because it shows how bold Robert was about the concept
of the devil which had many of his contemporaries cowered down in fear.
Here it is and you will immediately see the problem for modern
audiences:
>
>
>
> Early this mornin'
> when you knocked upon my door
> Early this mornin', ooh
> when you knocked upon my door
> And I said, "Hello, Satan,"
> I believe it's time to go."
>
>
> Me and the Devil
> was walkin' side by side
> Me and the Devil, ooh
> was walkin' side by side
> And I'm goin' to beat my woman
> until I get satisfied
>
>
> She say you don't see why
> that I will dog her 'round
> spoken: Now, babe, you know you ain't doin' me
> right, don'cha
> She say you don't see why, ooh
> that I will dog her 'round
> It must-a be that old evil spirit
> so deep down in the ground
>
>
> You may bury my body
> down by the highway side
> spoken: Baby, I don't care where you bury my
> body when I'm dead and gone
> You may bury my body, ooh
> down by the highway side
> So my old evil spirit
> can catch a Greyhound bus and ride
>
> For Robert this was a comedic song with the line "I'm gunna beat my
woman till I get satisfied" pulling the biggest laugh from an audience
that was more along the lines of Ralph Cramdon making a fist and saying
"one of these days Alice, straight to the moon". Today this is all over
the top creepy, we know too much. But in Robert's day women beating men
were also common. (It was a big problem for Charley Patton with Bertha
Lee who was considerably bigger and stronger and usually less drunk.)
>
> So of course I can't explain all this as the audience turns on me for
singing such a lyric so I change it to:
>
> "I'm gunna do my woman till we both get satisfied" to make sure that
there is not misunderstanding even adding "both".
>
> But here is the problem artistically. I wreck the song's comedic
intention about the battle of the sexes and turn it into some kind of
sexual bravado bragging. It wrecks the meaning of the next verses.
>
> "She say you don't see why
> that I will dog her 'round "
>
> Then he blames it on the devil:
>
> It must-a be that old evil spirit
> so deep down in the ground
>
> I can get a laugh out of a modern audience here by saying that he is
blaming his bad behavior on the devil but I don't think that worked any
better back then as it does today. This restores some of the original
snarky intention of the lyrics that I stepped on my making it more
politically correct.
>
> More trouble in bluesman city: "Big fat woman" lyrics and the even
worse, "black skinned woman who shouldn't put a hand on me, while a
brown skinned woman is something fit to eat." (Yes shade racism is still
common today in the black community.) So I drop all the fat woman
references (even though in the songs it is a compliment) and they become
a big legged woman, which is more clearly complimentary, and turn the
color discrimination into different cities. (A Leland woman, something
fit to eat, but you Memphis women,don't put your hands on me.) It still
retains some of the character of the original with the benefit of not
having Sam Adams bottles bounced off my head. (I play in yuppie joints.)
>
> It is all part of trying to be socially conscious while trying to
preserve this poetry. Most of these lines are a distraction to the
song's more general meanings, so I don't want the audience's focus by
reaction to keep them from appreciating the music.
>
> And then there is all the sex stuff where metaphors are not
metaphorical enough that I have to shift for the schools shows. "You can
squeeze my lemon till the juice runs down my leg" rarely makes it into
any show before midnight after the booze has flowed freely. It is too
much for even most adult audiences. It is a constant process of
decisions that makes playing this music today very challenging but
interesting.
>
> Thanks for the rap.
>
> Oh yeah, the master:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7ZzfjRzZuk
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote:
> >
> > Dear Curtis, thank you so much for this. Â Part of me was
thinking that given the time frame and aesthetics and lyrics and subject
of the whol

[FairfieldLife] YF-suutra and swimming?

[card]

Has anybody tried YF-suutra whilst swimming.

I'm not a good swimmer. Thot mite try that next summer.
Perhaps it improves my ability to keep afloat!? LoL!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote:
>
> Steve: Â This is the problem with the internet. Â You could not
see that I was typing away doing a mindfulness technique watching the
words that rolled off my fingertips. Â Hence, my surprise at the
little tangent I took towards Curtis. Â Very relaxed. Â In no way
was I frustrated - now, I was frustrated when I left as my taxes were
looming and I had procrastinated on all that all year long. Â


You know just how to disarm a person! (-:

>
> > From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@...
> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:45 AM
> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and
Barry
> >
> >
> >
> >Â
> >I don't know Emily, but "frustration", I would say was a good
description of what came through on your posts yesterday. But that is
understandable.  Returning from time spent for rest and
relaxation can often be difficult, so I am understanding.
> >
> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote:
> >>
> >> Do you think he has some inherent frustration growing about being
Share's "knight in shining armor?"
> >>
> >> Wait, is that a kind and sensitive thing to say?  I hope so.
 (Alex, I have applied to volunteer as Saint FFL - I might need
that application back...)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > From: authfriend authfriend@
> >> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >> >Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 9:05 PM
> >> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share,
and Barry
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >ÂÂ
> >> >The strange thing is, Steve *used* to be a relatively
> >> >nice fella, who would occasionally make at least a quasi-
> >> >intelligent post, sometimes even a funny one. He was
> >> >friendly and cheery, rarely attacked anybody, wasn't at
> >> >all obnoxious. And he was his own person, not a toady.
> >> >
> >> >Something has happened or is happening to him, something
> >> >distinctly ungood.
> >> >
> >> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" awoelflebater@ wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Judy, I get it that subtle distinctions are not your strong
point. So,
> >> >> > I'm just going to let you reflect on it, and then maybe it'll
come to
> >> >> > you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Get back to me if you get some inspiration. I'll be rooting
for you.
> >> >> > (-:
> >> >>
> >> >> Dear Steve, I implore you to stop. Stop now. Even though it's
too late, you need to get a grip. This is starting to become
embarrassing. You are no longer anyone's champion, you are just some guy
acting stupid. I would say this even if it was me you thought you were
defending.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"
steve.sundur@
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > You don't die from psychological rape. You die from being
murdered.
> >> >> > > > There is a difference. Sorry about that.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > My *God*, you are stupid.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Let's say you got mugged.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > A person doesn't get mugged all by themselves. There has
> >> >> > > to be a person who commits the mugging.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Is there a subtle difference between saying a person
> >> >> > > was mugged and calling the person who mugged him a
> >> >> > > mugger?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > (Thinking time required to adjust for Stevie's stupidity:
> >> >> > > about 3 seconds.)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Is this some ego-deflating spiritual practice our Stevie
> >> >> > > has undertaken, to repeatedly come up with laughably
> >> >> > > idiotic remarks to make himself look bad?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily bad news about the ego

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote:
>
> Dear Share: Â First, remember I don't speak your language - think
of me as a kid in, oh, 4th grade. Â It would be kind of you to speak
to me as if explaining all this to a child. Â Assume that I have a
open inquisitive little face and that my demeanor is nothing but
friendly.

   There is a barrette askew in my hair.

I haven't read anything else, but that is really funny.


>
> My original question to you was: Â
>
> "Curiously, is TM a technique that professes to address the ego? How?
Are there stated goals related to one's ego and the purpose of TM? Â
Yes, I ask because I don't know."
>
> Your answer was: Â  Â
>
> "Emily I've heard that what happens is that the ego gains cosmic
status."Â Â Of course just knowing that can be a slippery slope
for some egos ha ha.
>
>
> What is cosmic status? Â How does the ego gain such a status? Â
When does the the ego gain such a status? Â Why is this a slippery
slope for some egos? Â
>
>
>
> >
> > From: Share Long sharelong60@...
> >To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:08 AM
> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] to Emily bad news about the ego
> >
> >
> >
> >Â
> >Emily I've heard that what happens is that the ego gains cosmic
status.  Of course just knowing that can be a slippery slope for
some egos ha ha.
> >As to The Other Matter:Â  I never knew the phrase emotional rape
til I read your post last night.  I knew no official definitions
when I made my accusation to Robin.  In a moment of clarity such as
prolonged extreme upset can produce, the phrase psychologically raped
came to me.  By that I meant that Robin attributed thoughts and
feelings to me that I wasn't having and he did so uninvited, too
forcefully and insidiously.  And it was an assault not just on my
emotions or feelings, thus your new definition is inadequate.  Sorry
and welcome back. Â Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Looks kinds lonely over there, mostly Dick Mays - I think Buck likes it over 
> here, having us apostates and meditation negative peoples to fuss at.

Yeah, I think we should all join and liven the place up a bit.


> 
>  From: Alex Stanley 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:00 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
>  
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> > >
> > > We've suggested that many a time to Buck.   It falls on deaf ears (or 
> > > blind eyes).  And then he knows he'd probably be the only member. ;-)
> > > 
> > > On 04/27/2013 02:30 AM, Michael Jackson wrote:
> > > > So this means that you want everyone who posts on FFL to be pro and rah 
> > > > rah TM and be in the Domes? - Why not simply create your own yahoo 
> > > > group with yourself as the head guru and emperor and do it however you 
> > > > want? then you could boot anyone out that didn't suit you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > 
> > Dear MJ and Bhairitu; really I am trying to accommodate you in
> > council here.   I see that of the two versions of the Saha Nav
> > Hymn that the TM version is more severe.  Of course the TM version
> > is the one that has guided the TM movement for so long and see
> > where it has gotten the TM community.  The TM one seems more
> > certain and inflexible than the actual translation of the hymn.
> > Hence I propose the actual Saha Nav translation.  For FFL I felt
> > that the correct translation could be more accommodating to our
> > needs here than the strict TM one and that the more proper or
> > actual translation could better allow for a truth and
> > reconciliation in our conversation here with mutual respect.
> 
> Buck, there already is a group that is completely in tune with how you want 
> FFL to be:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fairfield_Community_Kiosk/
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Michael Jackson]

Looks kinds lonely over there, mostly Dick Mays - I think Buck likes it over 
here, having us apostates and meditation negative peoples to fuss at.



 From: Alex Stanley 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:00 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
 


  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >
> > We've suggested that many a time to Buck.   It falls on deaf ears (or 
> > blind eyes).  And then he knows he'd probably be the only member. ;-)
> > 
> > On 04/27/2013 02:30 AM, Michael Jackson wrote:
> > > So this means that you want everyone who posts on FFL to be pro and rah 
> > > rah TM and be in the Domes? - Why not simply create your own yahoo group 
> > > with yourself as the head guru and emperor and do it however you want? 
> > > then you could boot anyone out that didn't suit you.
> > >
> > >
> 
> Dear MJ and Bhairitu; really I am trying to accommodate you in
> council here.   I see that of the two versions of the Saha Nav
> Hymn that the TM version is more severe.  Of course the TM version
> is the one that has guided the TM movement for so long and see
> where it has gotten the TM community.  The TM one seems more
> certain and inflexible than the actual translation of the hymn.
> Hence I propose the actual Saha Nav translation.  For FFL I felt
> that the correct translation could be more accommodating to our
> needs here than the strict TM one and that the more proper or
> actual translation could better allow for a truth and
> reconciliation in our conversation here with mutual respect.

Buck, there already is a group that is completely in tune with how you want FFL 
to be:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fairfield_Community_Kiosk/


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Michael Jackson]

well, if you go by the never hate anyone part, then many of the poster here 
will have to go elsewhere.




 From: Buck 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:44 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
 


  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> We've suggested that many a time to Buck.   It falls on deaf ears (or 
> blind eyes).  And then he knows he'd probably be the only member. ;-)
> 
> On 04/27/2013 02:30 AM, Michael Jackson wrote:
> > So this means that you want everyone who posts on FFL to be pro and rah rah 
> > TM and be in the Domes? - Why not simply create your own yahoo group with 
> > yourself as the head guru and emperor and do it however you want? then you 
> > could boot anyone out that didn't suit you.
> >
> >

Dear MJ and Bhairitu; really I am trying to accommodate you in council here.   
I see that of the two versions of the Saha Nav Hymn that the TM version is more 
severe.  Of course the TM version is the one that has guided the TM movement 
for so long and see where it has gotten the TM community.  The TM one seems 
more certain and inflexible than the actual translation of the hymn.  Hence I 
propose the actual Saha Nav translation.  For FFL I felt that the correct 
translation could be more accommodating to our needs here than the strict TM 
one and that the more proper or actual translation could better allow for a 
truth and reconciliation in our conversation here with mutual respect.
-Buck

> >
> >
> > 
> >   From: Buck 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:00 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
> > 
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> > Yes, I suggest we adopt this more correct Saha Nav Hymn as a code of 
> > conduct for posting on FairfieldLife.
> > -Buck
> >
> >> You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity
> >> I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an 
> >> inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife..  Particularly for 
> >> posting negativity here on FFL.  You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, 
> >> not a right.  We should do more to protect that privilege.  This is a 
> >> simple guideline that is very easily enforced.  Coulld just revoke 
> >> someone's FFL membership when they violate it.  For being negative like 
> >> that.
> >>
> >> Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up 
> >> every time.  It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all 
> >> use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a 
> >> safer place to be.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> -Buck
> >>
> >> Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together;
> >> may It nourish us both together;
> >> May we work conjointly with great energy,
> >> May our study be vigorous and effective;
> >> May we not mutually dispute
> >> or may we not hate any.
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  >>>
> >>> I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of 
> >>> that hymn. Thanks Cardm,
> >>>
> >>> Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together;
> >>> may It nourish us both together;
> >>> May we work conjointly with great energy,
> >>> May our study be vigorous and effective;
> >>> May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> >>> Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time!
> >>> Well then, no wonder.
> >>>
> >>> saha nau avatu .
> >>> saha nau bhunaktu .
> >>> saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> >>> tejasvi nau;
> >>> adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai .
> >>>
> >> That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak.
> >> The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this:
> >>
> >>   saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> >>   tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai .
> >>
> >> That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav',
> >> without any effect on the *semantic* level.
> >>
> > This seems to be the most accurate translation I could
> > find quickly:
> >
> > Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together;
> > May we work conjointly with great energy,
> > May our study be vigorous and effective;
> > May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
> >
>  Oh, so that's the correct translation.  For us meditators here, it reads 
>  really well substituting in `Unified Field.  It's beautiful even if it 
>  is not the way Maharishi and Bevan used it.
> 
>  Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together;
>  may It nourish us both together;
>  May we work

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >
> > We've suggested that many a time to Buck.   It falls on deaf ears (or 
> > blind eyes).  And then he knows he'd probably be the only member. ;-)
> > 
> > On 04/27/2013 02:30 AM, Michael Jackson wrote:
> > > So this means that you want everyone who posts on FFL to be pro and rah 
> > > rah TM and be in the Domes? - Why not simply create your own yahoo group 
> > > with yourself as the head guru and emperor and do it however you want? 
> > > then you could boot anyone out that didn't suit you.
> > >
> > >
> 
> Dear MJ and Bhairitu; really I am trying to accommodate you in
> council here.   I see that of the two versions of the Saha Nav
> Hymn that the TM version is more severe.  Of course the TM version
> is the one that has guided the TM movement for so long and see
> where it has gotten the TM community.  The TM one seems more
> certain and inflexible than the actual translation of the hymn.
> Hence I propose the actual Saha Nav translation.  For FFL I felt
> that the correct translation could be more accommodating to our
> needs here than the strict TM one and that the more proper or
> actual translation could better allow for a truth and
> reconciliation in our conversation here with mutual respect.

Buck, there already is a group that is completely in tune with how you want FFL 
to be:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fairfield_Community_Kiosk/

[FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> We've suggested that many a time to Buck.   It falls on deaf ears (or 
> blind eyes).  And then he knows he'd probably be the only member. ;-)
> 
> On 04/27/2013 02:30 AM, Michael Jackson wrote:
> > So this means that you want everyone who posts on FFL to be pro and rah rah 
> > TM and be in the Domes? - Why not simply create your own yahoo group with 
> > yourself as the head guru and emperor and do it however you want? then you 
> > could boot anyone out that didn't suit you.
> >
> >

Dear MJ and Bhairitu; really I am trying to accommodate you in council here.   
I see that of the two versions of the Saha Nav Hymn that the TM version is more 
severe.  Of course the TM version is the one that has guided the TM movement 
for so long and see where it has gotten the TM community.  The TM one seems 
more certain and inflexible than the actual translation of the hymn.  Hence I 
propose the actual Saha Nav translation.  For FFL I felt that the correct 
translation could be more accommodating to our needs here than the strict TM 
one and that the more proper or actual translation could better allow for a 
truth and reconciliation in our conversation here with mutual respect.
-Buck
  
> >
> >
> > 
> >   From: Buck 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:00 PM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
> >   
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, I suggest we adopt this more correct Saha Nav Hymn as a code of 
> > conduct for posting on FairfieldLife.
> > -Buck
> >
> >> You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity
> >> I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an 
> >> inclusive guideline for posting on FairfieldLife..  Particularly for 
> >> posting negativity here on FFL.  You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, 
> >> not a right.  We should do more to protect that privilege.  This is a 
> >> simple guideline that is very easily enforced.  Coulld just revoke 
> >> someone's FFL membership when they violate it.  For being negative like 
> >> that.
> >>
> >> Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up 
> >> every time.  It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all 
> >> use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a 
> >> safer place to be.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> -Buck
> >>
> >> Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together;
> >> may It nourish us both together;
> >> May we work conjointly with great energy,
> >> May our study be vigorous and effective;
> >> May we not mutually dispute
> >> or may we not hate any.
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  >>>
> >>> I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of 
> >>> that hymn. Thanks Cardm,
> >>>
> >>> Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together;
> >>> may It nourish us both together;
> >>> May we work conjointly with great energy,
> >>> May our study be vigorous and effective;
> >>> May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> >>> Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time!
> >>> Well then, no wonder.
> >>>
> >>> saha nau avatu .
> >>> saha nau bhunaktu .
> >>> saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> >>> tejasvi nau;
> >>> adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai .
> >>>
> >> That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak.
> >> The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this:
> >>
> >>   saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
> >>   tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai .
> >>
> >> That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav',
> >> without any effect on the *semantic* level.
> >>
> > This seems to be the most accurate translation I could
> > find quickly:
> >
> > Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together;
> > May we work conjointly with great energy,
> > May our study be vigorous and effective;
> > May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
> >
>  Oh, so that's the correct translation.  For us meditators here, it reads 
>  really well substituting in `Unified Field.  It's beautiful even if it 
>  is not the way Maharishi and Bevan used it.
> 
>  Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together;
>  may It nourish us both together;
>  May we work conjointly with great energy,
>  May our study be vigorous and effective;
>  May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
> 
> 
> 
> >   May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) 
> > together (saha);
> >   may He nouris

[FairfieldLife] Re: curious about Sal Sunshine

[authfriend]

OK, Bar, here ya go. Sorry it took me so long to get
around to you.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  
wrote:
> >
> > What was her alleged transgression against Judy?
> 
> By the way, this is what is known among Internet
> old timers as a "Hate Setup." It's akin to asking
> a guy wearing a white sheet and a pointy white hat
> what exactly he doesn't like about black people. 
> It's an "invitation to rant." 
> 
> But now that Ann has gotten the ball rolling,

Hee hee. Barry's so agitated he doesn't know whose
post he's commenting on.

 let's
> give the person she's feeding setup lines to 

That would be Share, not Ann, and Share is feeding
lines to anyone who will say something nasty about
me (like Barry).

> some
> more fodder for when she Hits The Ground Hating 
> again just after the clock ticks midnight Friday:
> 
> - What was it that Ruth did to piss off Judy so
> much that she drove her away from FFL?

Ooopsie, Barry's got his women confused. Ruth never
drove me off FFL; it was Ruth who left. You'd have
to ask her why.

> - What was Andrew Skolnick's mortal sin that she
> spent *years* stalking him on alt.m.t. and still
> rants about him occasionally on FFL, a decade 
> after he last posted to any TM forum?

Actually, as Barry knows, it was Andrew who stalked
TMers on alt.m.t for years. He was a chronic and *very*
vicious liar. He stalked me specifically (even set up
a Web site about me) because I kept exposing his lies.

As Barry also knows, I *very* rarely mention Andrew
on FFL unless someone else (usually Barry) brings
him up (usually by posting the URL to his anti-Judy
Web site) and tells some lies about what went on
between Andrew and me (including the Really Big Lie
that I contacted Andrew's employer and tried to get
him fired).

> - What did John Knapp do to deserve Judy's never-
> ending hatred?

As Barry knows, John lied a blue streak when he was
on alt.m.t. As he also knows, I don't like liars.
For more documentation, check out the links Carol
provided here awhile back.

> - What exactly does Judy have against Vaj?

As Barry knows, because he's a liar, and I don't
like liars.

> - What made Judy turn on John from Brazil (do.rflex)
> and spend so many posts trying to demonize him?

As Barry knows, I didn't turn on John; John turned on
*me* because I wouldn't join the pro-Obama bandwagon
during the primary campaign for the 2008 election.

> - What is it about Curtis (whom most people like)
> that drives Judy crazy and causes her to devote so
> much time to trying to get other people to hate
> him as much as she does?

Curtis doesn't drive me crazy. I dislike him because
he's dishonest to the core.

> - What was it about Barry that caused Judy to start
> stalking him within days of his first appearance
> on alt.m.t., and to continue doing so -- pretty much
> non-stop -- for over EIGHTEEN YEARS?

Barry has always been the stalker. He alienated me
not too long after I first encountered him on alt.m.t
("days" sort of covers everything, but as I recall
it was a couple of weeks; I also thought he was
there before I was, but I could be wrong about that).

As Barry knows, he and I had had an email conversation
(yes, he wasn't so paranoid back then) about TM
instruction, and he posted to alt.m.t about it,
grossly misrepresenting what each of us had said. That
was my first exposure to his habitual dishonesty,
which has only grown worse over the years.

> There. That should give her something to do while
> sitting on the Post Flood bench. :-)

Very little, actually. Gotta tell better lies than
these if you want to keep me busy exposing them.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity

[Bhairitu]

We've suggested that many a time to Buck.   It falls on deaf ears (or 
blind eyes).  And then he knows he'd probably be the only member. ;-)

On 04/27/2013 02:30 AM, Michael Jackson wrote:
> So this means that you want everyone who posts on FFL to be pro and rah rah 
> TM and be in the Domes? - Why not simply create your own yahoo group with 
> yourself as the head guru and emperor and do it however you want? then you 
> could boot anyone out that didn't suit you.
>
>
>
>
> 
>   From: Buck 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:00 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The TM hymn on Negativity
>   
>
>
>
>
> Yes, I suggest we adopt this more correct Saha Nav Hymn as a code of conduct 
> for posting on FairfieldLife.
> -Buck
>
>> You know, the TM Hymn on Negativity
>> I should think it would make a nice unified code of conduct as an inclusive 
>> guideline for posting on FairfieldLife..  Particularly for posting 
>> negativity here on FFL.  You know, posting on FFL is a privilege, not a 
>> right.  We should do more to protect that privilege.  This is a simple 
>> guideline that is very easily enforced.  Coulld just revoke someone's FFL 
>> membership when they violate it.  For being negative like that.
>>
>> Have it on the homepage as part of the forum description so it comes up 
>> every time.  It's a uniform code of justice to attend to that we could all 
>> use and our moderators enforce. We'd all be better off and the list a safer 
>> place to be.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> -Buck
>>
>> Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together;
>> may It nourish us both together;
>> May we work conjointly with great energy,
>> May our study be vigorous and effective;
>> May we not mutually dispute
>> or may we not hate any.
>>
>>
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" >>
>>> I kind of suspected you'd come up with the more correct translation of that 
>>> hymn. Thanks Cardm,
>>>
>>> Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together;
>>> may It nourish us both together;
>>> May we work conjointly with great energy,
>>> May our study be vigorous and effective;
>>> May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>>
>>
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
>>> Om Jeezus X-mas, they've been chanting it wrong all this time!
>>> Well then, no wonder.
>>>
>>> saha nau avatu .
>>> saha nau bhunaktu .
>>> saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
>>> tejasvi nau;
>>> adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai .
>>>
>> That's pada-paaTha (word-reading), so to speak.
>> The saMhitaa-paaTha goes like this:
>>
>>   saha naav avatu . saha nau bhunaktu . saha viiryaM karavaavahai .
>>   tejasvi naav adhiitam astu maa vidviSaavahai .
>>
>> That is, before a *vowel*, 'nau' changes to 'naav',
>> without any effect on the *semantic* level.
>>
> This seems to be the most accurate translation I could
> find quickly:
>
> Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together;
> May we work conjointly with great energy,
> May our study be vigorous and effective;
> May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).
>
 Oh, so that's the correct translation.  For us meditators here, it reads 
 really well substituting in `Unified Field.  It's beautiful even if it is 
 not the way Maharishi and Bevan used it.

 Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together;
 may It nourish us both together;
 May we work conjointly with great energy,
 May our study be vigorous and effective;
 May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any).



>   May He protect (avatu) us both (nau [~now] accusative *dual*) together 
> (saha);
>   may He nourish (bhunaktu) us both (nau) together (saha);
> May we work (karavaavahai) conjointly (saha)
> with great energy (viiryam),
> May our study be (adhiitam [study] astu [may (it) be])
>   vigorous-and-effective (tejasvi);
> May we not (maa: 'we' in the verb ->) mutually-dispute (vidviSaavahai)
> (or may we not hate any: vidviSaavahai).
>
>
>   

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song - P.S.

[Emily Reyn]

P.S.  I recently read a Rolling Stone interview with Louis CK.  I was also 
figuring that if you can handle his humor, you can definitely handle my "fuck 
you man, fuck you."  Tee Hee.  See, I do amuse myself here as you wouldn't have 
known that, but we done good this time and seeing where the conversation goes 
does make for some good entertainment at times.  Peace out.   



>
> From: Emily Reyn 
>To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
>Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 12:21 PM
>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song
> 
>
>
>  
>Excellent Curtis.  Really interesting.  I had no idea the considerations that 
>go into what you do and how you look at the lyrics, etc. and who your audience 
>is.  I'm not a musician.  
>
>
>Re: the rest of it...we're clear.  I sent you my angst about the term "gang 
>rape" and yes, I was trying to do it in a riff.  (I didn't pull out the FOAD 
>acronym - imagine the "Fuck you, man, fuck you" delivered by a comedian 
>onstage). 
>
>
>Yes, I pulled the lyrics and posted them because I was confused as to your 
>point to me that day. But, I'm glad I did, because the higher energy/spirit of 
>the music ultimately triumphed over potential hurt feelings on my part.  You 
>made amends in my mind, through acknowledging your use of that term and going 
>to the effort to post an analysis of the song and then another, the one below.
>
>
>These songs are great in one way because they reflect the reality of the day, 
>the relationship issues that existed, attitudes, feelings, etc.  in the black 
>culture.  Not all positive, that is for sure.  But, often respectful, in a 
>way, because women are recognized as a force of nature in their 
>culture/community.  Look that the relationship of the black man to his mama 
>still - not that it's always healthy, but it ain't no joke.    
>
>
>Gotta go for the day.  Speaking of women, love this one.  I'm smiling.  Ha.  
>
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7MhGtJTXjg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> From: curtisdeltablues 
>>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>>Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 9:51 AM
>>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song
>> 
>>
>>
>>  
>>I appreciate that Emily as well as your response to Raunchy's post.
>>
>>Great art is provocative and this discussion has deepened my respect for the 
>>lyrics.
>>
>>I also think that your mentioning the cultural context IS key to 
>>understanding the intent of the author.
>>
>>I run into this decision often in singing songs from a different historical 
>>and cultural context.  Just last night I sang Robert Johnson's Me and the 
>>Devil"
>>
>>( I am going to point our a verse but the content is not being directed 
>>toward you!)
>>
>>I love the song because it shows how bold Robert was about the concept of the 
>>devil which had many of his contemporaries cowered down in fear. Here it is 
>>and you will immediately see the problem for modern audiences:
>>
>>Early this mornin'
>>when you knocked upon my door
>>Early this mornin', ooh
>>when you knocked upon my door
>>And I said, "Hello, Satan,"
>>I believe it's time to go."
>>
>>Me and the Devil
>>was walkin' side by side
>>Me and the Devil, ooh
>>was walkin' side by side
>>And I'm goin' to beat my woman
>>until I get satisfied
>>
>>She say you don't see why
>>that I will dog her 'round
>>spoken: Now, babe, you know you ain't doin' me
>>right, don'cha
>>She say you don't see why, ooh
>>that I will dog her 'round
>>It must-a be that old evil spirit
>>so deep down in the ground
>>
>>You may bury my body
>>down by the highway side
>>spoken: Baby, I don't care where you bury my
>>body when I'm dead and gone
>>You may bury my body, ooh
>>down by the highway side
>>So my old evil spirit
>>can catch a Greyhound bus and ride
>>
>>For Robert this was a comedic song with the line "I'm gunna beat my woman 
>>till I get satisfied" pulling the biggest laugh from an audience that was 
>>more along the lines of Ralph Cramdon making a fist and saying "one of these 
>>days Alice, straight to the moon".  Today this is all over the top creepy, we 
>>know too much.  But in Robert's day women beating men were also common. (It 
>>was a big problem for Charley Patton with Bertha Lee who was considerably 
>>bigger and stronger and usually less drunk.)
>>
>>So of course I can't explain all this as the audience turns on me for singing 
>>such a lyric so I change it to:
>>
>>"I'm gunna do my woman till we both get satisfied" to make sure that there is 
>>not misunderstanding even adding "both".
>>
>>But here is the problem artistically.  I wreck the song's comedic intention 
>>about the battle of the sexes and turn it into some kind of sexual bravado 
>>bragging.  It wrecks the meaning of the next verses.
>>
>>"She say you don't see why
>>that I will dog her 'round "
>>
>>Then he blames it on the devil:
>>
>>It must-a be that old evil spirit
>>so deep down in the ground
>>
>>I can get a 

[FairfieldLife] The Aquatic Ape?

[salyavin808]

Great news for evolution lovers! It seems the old idea that mankind had
an aquatic phase - the evolutionary impact of which gave us (among other
things) our upright gate, hairless skin and greater intelligence - is
getting a more serious airing. About time too! I had thought the theory
had been abandoned by the mainstream (it never even gets mentioned on
BBC documentaries for instance) as there always seems to be other more
fashionable ideas. Trouble is none of them account for all the anomalies
between us and the other apes as efficiently as the Aquatic Ape idea
which gives us all of them in one fell swoop and using already observed
principles.  Occam's razor.
So I kept on liking the idea as it just makes so much sense, and now
here we are with no less a luminary than David Attenborough giving a
talk about it, I look forward to it muchly.

Big brains, no fur, sinuses … are these clues to our ancestors'
lives as 'aquatic apes'?

David Attenborough joins growing body of scientific support for theory
that could explain one of the great leaps of human evolution

*

*  [Female western lowland gorilla]
  Some scientists believe our ancestors lived an aquatic lifestyle.


It is one of the most unusual evolutionary ideas ever proposed: humans
are amphibious apes who lost their fur, started to walk upright and
developed big brains because they took to living the good life by the
water's edge.

This is the aquatic ape theory and although treated with derision by
some academics over the past 50 years, it is still backed by a small,
but committed group of scientists. Next week they will hold a major
London conference when several speakers, including David Attenborough
 , will voice
support for the theory.

"Humans are very different from other apes," said Peter Rhys Evans, an
organiser of Human Evolution: Past, Present and Future
 . "We lack fur, walk
upright, have big brains and subcutaneous fat and have a descended
larynx, a feature common among aquatic animals but not apes."

Standard evolutionary models suggest these different features appeared
at separate times and for different reasons. The aquatic ape theory
argues they all occurred because our ancestors decided to live in or
near water for hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of years.

The theory was first proposed in 1960 by British biologist Sir Alister
Hardy, who believed apes descended from the trees to live, not on the
savannah as is usually supposed, but in flooded creeks, river banks and
sea shores, some of Earth's richest sources of food. To keep their heads
above water, they evolved an upright stance, freeing their hands to make
tools to crack open shellfish. Then they lost their body hair and
instead developed a thick layer of subcutaneous fat to keep warm in the
water.

Scientists have since added other human attributes of claimed aquatic
origin – a recent addition being the sinus, said Rhys Evans, an
expert on head and neck physiology at the Royal Marsden hospital,
London.

"Humans have particularly large sinuses, spaces in the skull between our
cheeks, noses and foreheads," he added. "But why do we have empty spaces
in our heads? It makes no sense until we consider the evolutionary
perspective. Then it becomes clear: our sinuses acted as buoyancy aids
that helped keep our heads above water."

Other palaeontologists dismiss parts of the theory. One or two human
features could have arisen because our ancestors picked homes near the
sea but the entire package of attributes – lack of fur, upright
posture, big brains, sinuses and others – is just too much, they
add.

"I think that wading in a watery environment is as good an explanation,
at the moment, for our upright gait as any other theory for human
bipedalism," said Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History
Museum, London. "But the whole aquatic ape package includes attributes
that appeared at very different times in our evolution
 . If they were all the
result of our lives in watery environments, we would have to have spent
millions of years there and there is evidence for this - not to mention
like crocodiles and other creatures would have made the water a very
dangerous place."

It is not just human physiology that reveals our aquatic past, argue the
theory's supporters. Our brain biochemistry is also revealing.
"Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is an omega-3 fatty acid that is found in
large amounts in seafood," said Dr Michael Crawford, of Imperial College
London.

"It boosts brain growth in mammals. That is why a dolphin has a much
bigger brain than a zebra, though they have roughly the same body sizes.
The dolphin has a diet rich in DHA. The crucial point is that without a
high DHA diet from seafood we could not have developed our big brains.
We got smar

[FairfieldLife] Re: Our little Dutch girl

[Susan]

She is lovely.  Rosy cheeks and all.  I also like the painted red floors - very 
cool.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Already dressed in orange for the upcoming Queen's Day festivities.
> 
>  
> [https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/381411_101515592\
> 74676743_324462293_n.jpg]
> 
> Vermeer would have killed to be able to paint her.
> 
>  
> [http://en.wahooart.com/Art.nsf/O/8Y2V7U/$File/Jan-Vermeer-Girl-with-a-P\
> earl-Earring.JPG]
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[Emily Reyn]

Excellent Curtis.  Really interesting.  I had no idea the considerations that 
go into what you do and how you look at the lyrics, etc. and who your audience 
is.  I'm not a musician.  

Re: the rest of it...we're clear.  I sent you my angst about the term "gang 
rape" and yes, I was trying to do it in a riff.  (I didn't pull out the FOAD 
acronym - imagine the "Fuck you, man, fuck you" delivered by a comedian 
onstage). 

Yes, I pulled the lyrics and posted them because I was confused as to your 
point to me that day. But, I'm glad I did, because the higher energy/spirit of 
the music ultimately triumphed over potential hurt feelings on my part.  You 
made amends in my mind, through acknowledging your use of that term and going 
to the effort to post an analysis of the song and then another, the one below.

These songs are great in one way because they reflect the reality of the day, 
the relationship issues that existed, attitudes, feelings, etc.  in the black 
culture.  Not all positive, that is for sure.  But, often respectful, in a way, 
because women are recognized as a force of nature in their culture/community.  
Look that the relationship of the black man to his mama still - not that it's 
always healthy, but it ain't no joke.    

Gotta go for the day.  Speaking of women, love this one.  I'm smiling.  Ha.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7MhGtJTXjg







>
> From: curtisdeltablues 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 9:51 AM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song
> 
>
>
>  
>I appreciate that Emily as well as your response to Raunchy's post.
>
>Great art is provocative and this discussion has deepened my respect for the 
>lyrics.
>
>I also think that your mentioning the cultural context IS key to understanding 
>the intent of the author.
>
>I run into this decision often in singing songs from a different historical 
>and cultural context.  Just last night I sang Robert Johnson's Me and the 
>Devil"
>
>( I am going to point our a verse but the content is not being directed toward 
>you!)
>
>I love the song because it shows how bold Robert was about the concept of the 
>devil which had many of his contemporaries cowered down in fear. Here it is 
>and you will immediately see the problem for modern audiences:
>
>Early this mornin'
>when you knocked upon my door
>Early this mornin', ooh
>when you knocked upon my door
>And I said, "Hello, Satan,"
>I believe it's time to go."
>
>Me and the Devil
>was walkin' side by side
>Me and the Devil, ooh
>was walkin' side by side
>And I'm goin' to beat my woman
>until I get satisfied
>
>She say you don't see why
>that I will dog her 'round
>spoken: Now, babe, you know you ain't doin' me
>right, don'cha
>She say you don't see why, ooh
>that I will dog her 'round
>It must-a be that old evil spirit
>so deep down in the ground
>
>You may bury my body
>down by the highway side
>spoken: Baby, I don't care where you bury my
>body when I'm dead and gone
>You may bury my body, ooh
>down by the highway side
>So my old evil spirit
>can catch a Greyhound bus and ride
>
>For Robert this was a comedic song with the line "I'm gunna beat my woman till 
>I get satisfied" pulling the biggest laugh from an audience that was more 
>along the lines of Ralph Cramdon making a fist and saying "one of these days 
>Alice, straight to the moon".  Today this is all over the top creepy, we know 
>too much.  But in Robert's day women beating men were also common. (It was a 
>big problem for Charley Patton with Bertha Lee who was considerably bigger and 
>stronger and usually less drunk.)
>
>So of course I can't explain all this as the audience turns on me for singing 
>such a lyric so I change it to:
>
>"I'm gunna do my woman till we both get satisfied" to make sure that there is 
>not misunderstanding even adding "both".
>
>But here is the problem artistically.  I wreck the song's comedic intention 
>about the battle of the sexes and turn it into some kind of sexual bravado 
>bragging.  It wrecks the meaning of the next verses.
>
>"She say you don't see why
>that I will dog her 'round "
>
>Then he blames it on the devil:
>
>It must-a be that old evil spirit
>so deep down in the ground
>
>I can get a laugh out of a modern audience here by saying that he is blaming 
>his bad behavior on the devil but I don't think that worked any better back 
>then as it does today.  This restores some of the original snarky intention of 
>the lyrics that I stepped on my making it more politically correct. 
>
>More trouble in bluesman city:  "Big fat woman" lyrics and the even worse, 
>"black skinned woman who shouldn't put a hand on me, while a brown skinned 
>woman is something fit to eat."  (Yes shade racism is still common today in 
>the black community.)  So I drop all the fat woman references (even though in 
>the songs it is a compliment) and they become a big legged woman, which is 
>more clearly complimentary,  and tu

[FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - were you trying to PR me?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > So glad you weighed in for more understanding no doubt, Judy.
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, as much as Curtis asserts that his goal is "to be
> > > > understood by other people here," it doesn't seem that
> > > > he is willing to respond to the question Emily asked
> > > > him: Why did he make a point of calling her attention
> > > > to a verse about gang rape? Instead he just wipes out
> > > > her context as if it had never existed.
> > > 
> > > The consensus of the discussion that it brought out was that like my GF, 
> > > some here thought it was not a rape but a woman in her power blowing off 
> > > her husband and living it up in a hedonistic fantasy.  I believe that the 
> > > author's intent was to show a man's powerlessness in the face of a woman 
> > > owning her personal power over men.  It continues to be a popular song in 
> > > my repertoire, as it was tonight, because it makes people think.  I 
> > > brought it to her attention because it makes people think.  Is that clear 
> > > enough?  No?
> > 
> > Yes, it's quite clear (whether it's *honest*, I don't
> > know). I'm still wondering why you didn't explain this
> > in the first place, given that Emily had asked you the
> > direct question.
> 
> Do you think it could have been because the post contained
> more than just a simple "direct question"?

I have no idea why you didn't answer the question. It was
obviously something that was bothering Emily, and you
responded to her post without answering it.

> Do you think?  Seriously do you think that the whole post
> had more than just a simple direct question to me as you 
> misrepresent here

Show us where I misrepresented anything. Show us where I
suggested there wasn't any more to her post than her
question.

Then when you can't do either, explain why you felt you
had to misrepresent what *I* said.

We can continue the discussion, if you like, once you've
done all that.




, or do you think that the whole message including the phrase:
> 
> "If you were, than I say "Fuck you, man, fuck you"
> 
> just MIGHT be experienced at the receiving end as more than a simple question?
> 
> Especially since I had taken her at her word the last time we discussed this 
> that we were simpatico about its meaning and certainly not me trying to send 
> her a rape message for some unknown dark purpose.
> 
> I am on the fence about you Judy.  It may well be that you actually do lack 
> the ability to understand the whole context of the post seen from my 
> perspective, receiving it out of the blue.
> 
> But Emily and I understand each other now, despite yours and Ravi's 
> ill-intentioned spin on our discussion.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Ok how is this: the song was written by people not on this forum,  and 
> > > concerns the lives of other people than exist in this time and place on 
> > > this discussion forum  Emily was the one who found the lyrics and posted 
> > > them, and I pointed out the most thought provoking verse as I do when I 
> > > am performing the song in my shows.  I want people to think about this 
> > > verse because it is complex and I missed its meaning at first.  Emily at 
> > > the time was sharing an artist who also is not afraid of expressing 
> > > figurative language based interesting lyrics.  
> > > 
> > > I did not send the lyrics to Emily, I corrected the ones I thought were 
> > > wrong and directed her attention to something interesting to me and every 
> > > audience I have performed it for.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Obviously she found it disturbing. Why wouldn't he
> > > > respond--unless that's what he wanted, for her to be
> > > > disturbed?>
> > > 
> > > She looked up the lyrics.  I pointed out the verse that was the most 
> > > controversial in meaning to promote the thoughtful discussion of the 
> > > intention of the writer.  At the time it worked but apparently in 
> > > retrospect she has taken my whole intention in a different direction than 
> > > intended.
> > > 
> > > Sorry Judy, no drama here.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Man, there are very creepy things going on on this 
> > > > forum lately.>
> > > 
> > > Your malicious intentions are at the heart of them.  You are a constant 
> > > source of ill will and misunderstanding here.
> > > 
> > > You are a troll and the intentions of this post are unfriendly. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I have no idea why you would write any of this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I shared music with you that I perform in my show. It has no meaning 
> > > > > directed toward you except I thought I was sharing interesting music 
> > > > > wi

[FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - were you trying to PR me?

[curtisdeltablues]

-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > So glad you weighed in for more understanding no doubt, Judy.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmm, as much as Curtis asserts that his goal is "to be
> > > understood by other people here," it doesn't seem that
> > > he is willing to respond to the question Emily asked
> > > him: Why did he make a point of calling her attention
> > > to a verse about gang rape? Instead he just wipes out
> > > her context as if it had never existed.
> > 
> > The consensus of the discussion that it brought out was that like my GF, 
> > some here thought it was not a rape but a woman in her power blowing off 
> > her husband and living it up in a hedonistic fantasy.  I believe that the 
> > author's intent was to show a man's powerlessness in the face of a woman 
> > owning her personal power over men.  It continues to be a popular song in 
> > my repertoire, as it was tonight, because it makes people think.  I brought 
> > it to her attention because it makes people think.  Is that clear enough?  
> > No?
> 
> Yes, it's quite clear (whether it's *honest*, I don't
> know). I'm still wondering why you didn't explain this
> in the first place, given that Emily had asked you the
> direct question.


Do you think it could have been because the post contained more than just a 
simple "direct question"?

Do you think?  Seriously do you think that the whole post had more than just a 
simple direct question to me as you misrepresent here, or do you think that the 
whole message including the phrase:

"If you were, than I say "Fuck you, man, fuck you"

just MIGHT be experienced at the receiving end as more than a simple question?

Especially since I had taken her at her word the last time we discussed this 
that we were simpatico about its meaning and certainly not me trying to send 
her a rape message for some unknown dark purpose.

I am on the fence about you Judy.  It may well be that you actually do lack the 
ability to understand the whole context of the post seen from my perspective, 
receiving it out of the blue.

But Emily and I understand each other now, despite yours and Ravi's 
ill-intentioned spin on our discussion.  







> 
> 
> > 
> > Ok how is this: the song was written by people not on this forum,  and 
> > concerns the lives of other people than exist in this time and place on 
> > this discussion forum  Emily was the one who found the lyrics and posted 
> > them, and I pointed out the most thought provoking verse as I do when I am 
> > performing the song in my shows.  I want people to think about this verse 
> > because it is complex and I missed its meaning at first.  Emily at the time 
> > was sharing an artist who also is not afraid of expressing figurative 
> > language based interesting lyrics.  
> > 
> > I did not send the lyrics to Emily, I corrected the ones I thought were 
> > wrong and directed her attention to something interesting to me and every 
> > audience I have performed it for.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Obviously she found it disturbing. Why wouldn't he
> > > respond--unless that's what he wanted, for her to be
> > > disturbed?>
> > 
> > She looked up the lyrics.  I pointed out the verse that was the most 
> > controversial in meaning to promote the thoughtful discussion of the 
> > intention of the writer.  At the time it worked but apparently in 
> > retrospect she has taken my whole intention in a different direction than 
> > intended.
> > 
> > Sorry Judy, no drama here.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Man, there are very creepy things going on on this 
> > > forum lately.>
> > 
> > Your malicious intentions are at the heart of them.  You are a constant 
> > source of ill will and misunderstanding here.
> > 
> > You are a troll and the intentions of this post are unfriendly. 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have no idea why you would write any of this.
> > > > 
> > > > I shared music with you that I perform in my show. It has no meaning 
> > > > directed toward you except I thought I was sharing interesting music 
> > > > with another music lover. 
> > > > 
> > > > To be clear:  There are no hidden messages or meanings directed toward 
> > > > you by any music I ever shared with you on this board, ever.  There are 
> > > > no hidden messages toward you in anything I have ever written to you 
> > > > here.  I have tried to be clear about what I meant at all times because 
> > > > my goal is to be understood by other people here.
> > > > 
> > > > Lets chill on sharing music. It apparently isn't working.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn"  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Curtis:  Hey, I was just responding to Xeno on his psychological 
> > > > > rape
> > > > > post an

[FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > But hey you got the buzz words in so a pat on the head 
> > should be showing up any time now.
> 
> The only thing I can imagine sadder than being the kind
> of person who gets their jollies from "getting" other 
> people they don't even know is the kind of person who 
> admires them, and wants to be like them, and gets 
> *their* jollies striving to get pats on the head 
> from these narcissopaths. 
> 
> I can count at least six on this forum...

Robin controls six people on this forum?? Has he gone off
on his own again?

Time to send out the troops, drag him back in chains to
his proper posture groveling at my feet. He must learn
that he is never, *ever* to pat anyone on the head
without my say-so.

[FairfieldLife] Re: in which Judy changes her gasp mind about Xeno

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Share, what you are missing here is the spirit of what Judy
> was saying. With respect to Xeno, whether one agrees or
> disagrees with what his take was, he is stating what he
> truly thinks - he is being honest about what he thinks.

Precisely. I'm not sure what Share was thinking--she appears
to believe she "got" me somehow.

As I said (quoted below), "sometimes we make inadvertent
mistakes." Xeno made a *whopper* of a mistake with that
post.




  I thought he should re-evaluate, like I did with the lyrics of the 
Roustabout song just now.  I do think I misinterpreted the lyrics in the heat 
of that conversation that occurred at the time.  
> 
> So, you can *trust* Xeno in that he brings his honest self to the forum - 
> whatever that looks like.  He's human.  
> 
> Ann, are you lying in bed naked this morning, thinking about fucking?  
> (Sorry, that's what a 50-year old woman says on a Saturday morning.)  Smile. 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > From: Ann 
> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> >Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 6:36 AM
> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: in which Judy changes her gasp mind about Xeno
> > 
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >>
> >> dear FFL, on Tuesday April 23, 2013 Xeno was included in the Judy Approved 
> >> People List aka we'll never lie to you or try to mislead you.
> >> On Friday April 26, 2013 it seems that Xeno may have been booted off that 
> >> list.  Xeno, please don't cry.
> >> 
> >> Judy on Tuesday April 23, 2013 about Xeno:
> >> Bottom line, there are people on FFL you can trust, and those you can't. 
> >> The former include (but are not necessarily limited to) Alex, sparaig, 
> >> doctordumbass, Bhairitu, salyavin, laughinggull, Xeno, Ann, Emily, 
> >> raunchy, and me. Some of us may give you a hard time now and then, and 
> >> sometimes we make inadvertent mistakes, but we'll never lie to you or 
> >> try to mislead you.
> >> 
> >> Judy on Friday April 26, 2013 about Xeno:
> >> This is insupportable and unconscionable, Xeno. It's
> >> inexcusable for you to suggest that it describes anything
> >> Robin ever did to Share.
> >> 
> >> and 
> >> 
> >> What is the reason for Xeno's ferocious and utterly 
> >> unreasonable hostility toward Robin in this post?
> >> 
> >> and the best one of all IMHO:
> >> 
> >> Right. It's fine with Xeno for Barry to psychologically
> >> rape Robin just to keep his writing skills honed.
> >> 
> >> God, the hypocrisy and malice are monumental.
> >
> >It's time to fuck off now Share.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[curtisdeltablues]

I appreciate that Emily as well as your response to Raunchy's post.

Great art is provocative and this discussion has deepened my respect for the 
lyrics.

I also think that your mentioning the cultural context IS key to understanding 
the intent of the author.

I run into this decision often in singing songs from a different historical and 
cultural context.  Just last night I sang Robert Johnson's Me and the Devil"

( I am going to point our a verse but the content is not being directed toward 
you!)

I love the song because it shows how bold Robert was about the concept of the 
devil which had many of his contemporaries cowered down in fear. Here it is and 
you will immediately see the problem for modern audiences:



Early this mornin'
when you knocked upon my door
Early this mornin', ooh
when you knocked upon my door
And I said, "Hello, Satan,"
I believe it's time to go."


Me and the Devil
was walkin' side by side
Me and the Devil, ooh
was walkin' side by side
And I'm goin' to beat my woman
until I get satisfied


She say you don't see why
that I will dog her 'round
spoken: Now, babe, you know you ain't doin' me
right, don'cha
She say you don't see why, ooh
that I will dog her 'round
It must-a be that old evil spirit
so deep down in the ground


You may bury my body
down by the highway side
spoken: Baby, I don't care where you bury my
body when I'm dead and gone
You may bury my body, ooh
down by the highway side
So my old evil spirit
can catch a Greyhound bus and ride

For Robert this was a comedic song with the line "I'm gunna beat my woman till 
I get satisfied" pulling the biggest laugh from an audience that was more along 
the lines of Ralph Cramdon making a fist and saying "one of these days Alice, 
straight to the moon".  Today this is all over the top creepy, we know too 
much.  But in Robert's day women beating men were also common. (It was a big 
problem for Charley Patton with Bertha Lee who was considerably bigger and 
stronger and usually less drunk.)

So of course I can't explain all this as the audience turns on me for singing 
such a lyric so I change it to:

"I'm gunna do my woman till we both get satisfied" to make sure that there is 
not misunderstanding even adding "both".

But here is the problem artistically.  I wreck the song's comedic intention 
about the battle of the sexes and turn it into some kind of sexual bravado 
bragging.  It wrecks the meaning of the next verses.

"She say you don't see why
that I will dog her 'round "

Then he blames it on the devil:

It must-a be that old evil spirit
so deep down in the ground

I can get a laugh out of a modern audience here by saying that he is blaming 
his bad behavior on the devil but I don't think that worked any better back 
then as it does today.  This restores some of the original snarky intention of 
the lyrics that I stepped on my making it more politically correct. 

More trouble in bluesman city:  "Big fat woman" lyrics and the even worse, 
"black skinned woman who shouldn't put a hand on me, while a brown skinned 
woman is something fit to eat."  (Yes shade racism is still common today in the 
black community.)  So I drop all the fat woman references (even though in the 
songs it is a compliment) and they become a big legged woman, which is more 
clearly complimentary,  and turn the color discrimination into different 
cities.  (A Leland woman, something fit to eat, but you Memphis women,don't put 
your hands on me.)  It still retains some of the character of the original with 
the benefit of not having Sam Adams bottles bounced off my head. (I play in 
yuppie joints.) 

It is all part of trying to be socially conscious while trying to preserve this 
poetry.  Most of these lines are a distraction to the song's more general 
meanings, so I don't want the audience's focus by reaction to keep them from 
appreciating the music.

And then there is all the sex stuff where metaphors are not metaphorical enough 
that I have to shift for the schools shows. "You can squeeze my lemon till the 
juice runs down my leg" rarely makes it into any show before midnight after the 
booze has flowed freely.  It is too much for even most adult audiences.  It is 
a constant process of decisions that makes playing this music today very 
challenging but interesting.

Thanks for the rap.

Oh yeah, the master:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7ZzfjRzZuk  






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn  wrote:
>
> Dear Curtis, thank you so much for this.  Part of me was thinking that given 
> the time frame and aesthetics and lyrics and subject of the whole song - i.e. 
> "gang rape" (such a callous and violent act) couldn't have been what was 
> intended by the writer of those lyrics.  Yes, it is a beautiful song - 
> poetry in motion.  It goes straight to the heart.  You have done justice to 
> the song and interpretation and corrected any mistaken perceptions on my part 
> that I was having in the moment.  Again, thank you.  My

[FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - were you trying to PR me?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> So glad you weighed in for more understanding no doubt, Judy.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, as much as Curtis asserts that his goal is "to be
> > understood by other people here," it doesn't seem that
> > he is willing to respond to the question Emily asked
> > him: Why did he make a point of calling her attention
> > to a verse about gang rape? Instead he just wipes out
> > her context as if it had never existed.
> 
> The consensus of the discussion that it brought out was that like my GF, some 
> here thought it was not a rape but a woman in her power blowing off her 
> husband and living it up in a hedonistic fantasy.  I believe that the 
> author's intent was to show a man's powerlessness in the face of a woman 
> owning her personal power over men.  It continues to be a popular song in my 
> repertoire, as it was tonight, because it makes people think.  I brought it 
> to her attention because it makes people think.  Is that clear enough?  No?

Yes, it's quite clear (whether it's *honest*, I don't
know). I'm still wondering why you didn't explain this
in the first place, given that Emily had asked you the
direct question.


> 
> Ok how is this: the song was written by people not on this forum,  and 
> concerns the lives of other people than exist in this time and place on this 
> discussion forum  Emily was the one who found the lyrics and posted them, and 
> I pointed out the most thought provoking verse as I do when I am performing 
> the song in my shows.  I want people to think about this verse because it is 
> complex and I missed its meaning at first.  Emily at the time was sharing an 
> artist who also is not afraid of expressing figurative language based 
> interesting lyrics.  
> 
> I did not send the lyrics to Emily, I corrected the ones I thought were wrong 
> and directed her attention to something interesting to me and every audience 
> I have performed it for.
> 
> > 
> > Obviously she found it disturbing. Why wouldn't he
> > respond--unless that's what he wanted, for her to be
> > disturbed?>
> 
> She looked up the lyrics.  I pointed out the verse that was the most 
> controversial in meaning to promote the thoughtful discussion of the 
> intention of the writer.  At the time it worked but apparently in retrospect 
> she has taken my whole intention in a different direction than intended.
> 
> Sorry Judy, no drama here.
> 
> > 
> > Man, there are very creepy things going on on this 
> > forum lately.>
> 
> Your malicious intentions are at the heart of them.  You are a constant 
> source of ill will and misunderstanding here.
> 
> You are a troll and the intentions of this post are unfriendly. 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > I have no idea why you would write any of this.
> > > 
> > > I shared music with you that I perform in my show. It has no meaning 
> > > directed toward you except I thought I was sharing interesting music with 
> > > another music lover. 
> > > 
> > > To be clear:  There are no hidden messages or meanings directed toward 
> > > you by any music I ever shared with you on this board, ever.  There are 
> > > no hidden messages toward you in anything I have ever written to you 
> > > here.  I have tried to be clear about what I meant at all times because 
> > > my goal is to be understood by other people here.
> > > 
> > > Lets chill on sharing music. It apparently isn't working.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emilymae.reyn"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Curtis:  Hey, I was just responding to Xeno on his psychological rape
> > > > post and this spontaneously came off my fingertips:
> > > > "nor did I [feel psychologically raped] recently, when Curtis referred
> > > > me to the gang rape lyrics of a song he posted.  I probably should have
> > > > then, come to think about it, but I just figured I had crossed his
> > > > boundary again, unknowingly, like I did the first time.  I was teasing
> > > > him; he got angry"
> > > > God bless it, were you trying to publicly PR me?  Did I not pick up on
> > > > that?  I'm kind of slow on the uptake sometimes, it's true.  You never
> > > > did explain to me why you referred me to the lyrics you did.  If you
> > > > were, than I say "Fuck you, man, fuck you."  If you weren't than maybe
> > > > you could explain it to me.  Am I right in my assumption above?
> > > > I know you ain't a country guy, in terms of music, but here's a song
> > > > from George Jones - RIP, that may bring you back to a performance period
> > > > that would be best left forever.
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onfce-UNmmE
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - were you trying to PR me?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
(snip)
(to Ravi)
> You think you are "getting" a person Judy does not like
> and winning her approval, but instead you are revealing
> yourself and your shallow agenda.

This old chestnut just cracks me up. I only *wish* I
had the kind of power to influence others that Curtis
and his buddies attribute to me.

Yes, it's sad. Nobody would ever say anything negative
about Curtis or Barry or Share, etc., if it weren't for
the fact that folks are desperate for my approval.

[FairfieldLife] Some really good TV (for a change)

[Bhairitu]

  Bravo for Netflix's "Hemlock Grove".  Hard to give a Buck rating for 
this one because it has it's grisly moments and a little nudity but it 
also has some supernatural elements.  This is a 13 episode series based 
on a novel by Brian McGreevy and brought to the screen by Eli Roth 
("Hostel").   It's basically a mystery/horror story about a Pennsylvania 
community in the shadow of a scientific institution run by a rich local 
Godfrey family.  The matriarch is wonderfully played by Framke Janssen 
runs herd over things and her two children Roman and Shelly while having 
an affair with the town psychiatrist.  Things get complicated after the 
grisly death of a local teenager and a suspect is a recently arrived 
teenage boy who is rumored to be a werewolf.

There's some excellent story telling here along with great direction and 
acting.  Penelope Mitchell  (cousin of Radha Mitchell) is outstanding 
playing Letha, Bill Skarsgard as Roman and Roman Liboiron as Peter the 
recently arrived teenager.  But all performances were excellent in this 
series.

I watched the series over the week and intended to watch episode 11 last 
night but was drawn in so much I had to watch the final two episodes.  
It shows you what great TV can be if you keep the bean counters away 
from the set.  It's available on Netflix WI:

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Hemlock_Grove/70242310

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2309295/


I have to also shout out that NBC's "Hannibal" is another good TV series 
breaking away from the schlock productions we normally see on network 
TV.  What was interesting is that episode 4 was skipped in the US though 
shown in foreign countries.  NBC does have snippets from episode 4 as a 
six part webisode on their YouTube channel. Series creator Bryan Fuller 
introduces the webisodes but it's a little sketchy what episode 4 is 
about.  It's broadcast network TV and grisly though CSI can equally be 
as grisly.  But again good acting, good writing and production in a 
style you might only find in a foreign TV series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UmTxgb9JLU

Re: [FairfieldLife] Our little Dutch girl

[Share Long]

What a beautiful photo, turq.  And what a quality of wonder and radiance Maya 
has.  Made my morning.  Thank you.




 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 11:02 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Our little Dutch girl
 


  
Already dressed in orange for the upcoming Queen's Day festivities.



Vermeer would have killed to be able to paint her.



 

[FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - were you trying to PR me?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> Do a search on the numerous times I have discussed
> dissociation, often about my own experiences with it, to
> see why Judy didn't quote from any of them. but instead,
> went to Wiki to not only change the context, but to
> change the actual term to depersonalization and
> dereaization to make it all sound more dramatic.

Oh, my, none of this is true.

See the whole discussion between Curtis, me, and Ravi
here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/341877

If you'd like to discuss the untruthfulness of your
paragraph above, Curtis, I'd be happy to indulge you.
Just let me know. I don't imagine you'll want to go
into it, though.

(So interesting how Curtis freely attributes negative
motivations to others but screams bloody murder whenever
anyone does that to him, isn't it?)

> My point had nothing to do with that, but I never got to it because you 
> followed Judy down the rabbit hole. (tip of the hat to Richard)
> 
> When you dissociate from your emotions here as reflected in your language, 
> you start your abusive routine.  It is very obvious to me.

Trouble with this is that, as in the case Curtis was
referring to, in his "abusive routines," Ravi will stick
in a third-person reference to himself (which amounts,
according to Curtis, to Ravi "dissociating" from his
emotions) here and there in the middle of material that
is in first-person:

"You would be an idiot if you think I haven't or don't interact with Bob and/or 
Robin directly and like you suspect I have and do love, respect both - the last 
time I checked they haven't undergone any sex change.

"Let me tell you a secret, if you are a man - the feeling of being loved and 
respected by Ravi after being baited and challenged by him is one of the most 
awesomest feelings. So unless I take fancy to someone everyone has to go 
through this process.

"I regret to say it but only a few have tasted that and based upon your current 
behavior your chances to succeed are very slim in light of your behavior 
discussed on this thread.

"Of course as you know Ravi is always ever open, relaxed and alert even as he 
challenges and confronts - so you may have good chance if you follow the below 
- we have already discussed this but considering your disability I am 
summarizing and reiterating it again"

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/341769



   
> 
> Dissociation (as I have discussed at length here, has a useful function in 
> certain contexts, and is not pathological unless you are stuck in it and 
> can't choose to associate into our feelings.  My point to you had nothing to 
> do with that extreme of the spectrum.
> 
> You are too busy doing troll work to have a discussion with Ravi, so I 
> immediately lost interest. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
> >
> > Well stop obscuring my point.
> > 
> > I said - Your response to Emily was cold, hostile, self-righteous and
> > contemptuous. You didn't address anything about misinterpretation in your
> > response. Where was the acknowledgement of Emily's POV? Was she a robot -
> > was she not entitled to her feelings - unless you think she's lying about
> > her feelings? Since this in light of Share's accusation perhaps referring
> > to Robin's responses may help?
> > 
> > You know what Curtis baby - you don't show any fucking sensitivity (did you
> > even read the sample response?) and that's a pattern with you - remember
> > your post on disassociation. No - there's no revealing of my shallow agenda
> > - it's revealing of your patterns.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:25 PM, curtisdeltablues <
> > curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > 
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Sensitive Ravi to the rescue. Right, got it.
> > >
> > > It was not a gang rape lyric, that was a misinterpretation.
> > >
> > > But that distinction will not interest you because you are a troll and
> > > your posting intentions are unfriendly.
> > >
> > > You think you are "getting" a person Judy does not like and winning her
> > > approval, but instead you are revealing yourself and your shallow agenda.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think a lot of men have incredible difficulty expressing empathy but
> > > this
> > > > one seems very cold-hearted and dismissive, as if the person asking 
> > > > these
> > > > questions had no right to these feelings and/or was irrational for even
> > > > trying to communicate that, viz "I have no idea why you write any of
> > > this"
> > > > - I wonder if this is narcissism, disassociation and/or psychopathy?
> > > >
> > > > Anyway here's one way I would respond assuming I was innocent.
> > > >
> > > > "Dear Emily - I am so sorry to hear that you were disturbed by the gang
> > > > rape lyrics. Looking back it was probably not a good idea to post it or 
> > > > I
> > > > should have cautioned you

[FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> But hey you got the buzz words in so a pat on the head 
> should be showing up any time now.

The only thing I can imagine sadder than being the kind
of person who gets their jollies from "getting" other 
people they don't even know is the kind of person who 
admires them, and wants to be like them, and gets 
*their* jollies striving to get pats on the head 
from these narcissopaths. 

I can count at least six on this forum...

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: in which Judy changes her gasp mind about Xeno

[Emily Reyn]

Share, what you are missing here is the spirit of what Judy was saying.  With 
respect to Xeno, whether one agrees or disagrees with what his take was, he is 
stating what he truly thinks - he is being honest about what he thinks.  I 
thought he should re-evaluate, like I did with the lyrics of the Roustabout 
song just now.  I do think I misinterpreted the lyrics in the heat of that 
conversation that occurred at the time.  

So, you can *trust* Xeno in that he brings his honest self to the forum - 
whatever that looks like.  He's human.  

Ann, are you lying in bed naked this morning, thinking about fucking?  (Sorry, 
that's what a 50-year old woman says on a Saturday morning.)  Smile.  



>
> From: Ann 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 6:36 AM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: in which Judy changes her gasp mind about Xeno
> 
>
>
>  
>
>
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>>
>> dear FFL, on Tuesday April 23, 2013 Xeno was included in the Judy Approved 
>> People List aka we'll never lie to you or try to mislead you.
>> On Friday April 26, 2013 it seems that Xeno may have been booted off that 
>> list.  Xeno, please don't cry.
>> 
>> Judy on Tuesday April 23, 2013 about Xeno:
>> Bottom line, there are people on FFL you can trust, and those you can't. The 
>> former include (but are not necessarily limited to) Alex, sparaig, 
>> doctordumbass, Bhairitu, salyavin, laughinggull, Xeno, Ann, Emily, 
>> raunchy, and me. Some of us may give you a hard time now and then, and 
>> sometimes we make inadvertent mistakes, but we'll never lie to you or 
>> try to mislead you.
>> 
>> Judy on Friday April 26, 2013 about Xeno:
>> This is insupportable and unconscionable, Xeno. It's
>> inexcusable for you to suggest that it describes anything
>> Robin ever did to Share.
>> 
>> and 
>> 
>> What is the reason for Xeno's ferocious and utterly 
>> unreasonable hostility toward Robin in this post?
>> 
>> and the best one of all IMHO:
>> 
>> Right. It's fine with Xeno for Barry to psychologically
>> rape Robin just to keep his writing skills honed.
>> 
>> God, the hypocrisy and malice are monumental.
>
>It's time to fuck off now Share.
>>
>
>
> 
>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[curtisdeltablues]

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

> So the woman leaves her man (poor sap )>

That is the story he is telling by his word choices Raunchy, I didn't write the 
song, I am trying to interpret its meaning.  He is painting himself as a victim 
throughout.  I have given my evidence for that POV.

< and gets herself gang raped to "serve his ass...>

No, you are the one shifting contexts here.  In the interpretation I am 
expressing, she was not raped obviously.  In trying to "get" me you are showing 
up as very dim.  In the interpretation that it was consensual payback sex with 
a group of men he was being served with his worst nightmare,

<" and *he's* the victim. Good one, Curtis.>

This is hostile and dishonest. Either you don't have the ability to keep the 
different versions straight, or you are trolling by collaging them both 
together purposely.  Either way you are showing up as a very unsavory 
character. 

< Thanks for giving us an interesting peek into of how to change context and 
turn logic on it's head. Your interpretation speaks volumes.>
>

So you put in some buzz words for a pat on the head from Robin, but did not 
make a case for your interpretation of music lyrics by trying to attack me.  
Yeah Raunchy, the most likely thing that this shows is that I support gang rape 
and believe that men are the victim when their wives are sexually assaulted.  
Nice deep insight.

What from the lyrics are you evaluating to indicate that this encounter was non 
consensual?

This is figurative language and you may be right to interpret it the way you 
do, which was my initial take before my GF showed me another possibility that I 
now believe has more evidence to support it.

You are welcome to your opinion of the lyrics, but your attempt to use this as 
a slam on me is very, very lame.

But hey you got the buzz words in so a pat on the head should be showing up any 
time now.







> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > This song is too beautiful to be subject to the FFL grinder.
> > I looked up the original discussion and I mentioned the last verse when I 
> > sent the song originally with Mike Seager singing it, not when Emily posted 
> > the lyrics.  I considered them interesting no matter what analysis you 
> > take, although now on closer examination, the whole context of the song 
> > makes the intention of the songwriter more clear. I was not sending Emily 
> > some dark message by pointing out the last verse for her comment.  Mike 
> > mumbles his words a bit and I wanted to make sure I got her take on the 
> > verse to see if it matched my GFs. At the time it did.
> > 
> > Emily:
> > 
> > "Interesting take from your girlfriend - I was curious as I wasn't sure how 
> > to interpret what I was reading and my first take was a more sinister 
> > nature. I prefer your girlfriend's thought and the last line = "try to tear 
> > my kingdom down" leaves room for exactly what she's talking about. Ha. 
> > 
> > 
> >   Here is my take on the meaning of the lyrics:
> > 
> > 
> > > >
> > > > Roustabout
> > 
> > Technical name of a job loading at docks.
> > 
> > > >
> > > > Oh you banjo roustabout
> > > > When you goin to the shore
> > > > I got a good gal on that other shore
> > > > Baby don't you want to go
> > > >
> > > > If I had an old pairs of wings
> > > > Like Noah's dove
> > > > I'd sail from pine to pine
> > > > Looking for my own true love
> > 
> > Idealism and romantic/naive hope expressed in those two lines.
> > 
> > > >
> > > > I'd a listened to what my momma said
> >  I wouldn't be here today
> > > > But me being young and foolish too
> > > > women lead me astray
> > 
> > This is the key to understanding why my GF's take was more reasonable than 
> > my initial take on the song. (In my defense I was a little caught up in 
> > mastering an old time banjo style, and that sucked up most of my neurons.)
> > 
> > In this verse we see that he had gotten played by the woman, not that she 
> > was a victim.  He is painting himself as a victim.
> > 
> > > >
> > > > Who's gonna shoe your pretty little feet
> > > > And who's gonna glove your hand
> > > > And who's gonna do your rockabye
> > > > When your man's in a distant land
> > 
> > Poor me, but when I leave you THEN you'll be sorry!
> > 
> > > >
> > > > My wife left home last night
> > > > I'll tell you where I found her
> > 
> > She left voluntarily.  Think of how different it would be to say : I threw 
> > my wife out last night...
> > 
> > She had an appointment.
> > 
> > > > Lying down in the pines>
> > 
> > "Lying down" lacks any sinister overtones.
> > 
> > > > A gang of boys around her>
> > 
> > 
> > This is probably what set me off in the wrong direction originally.  I 
> > suspect that "gang" was equivalent to "group" and had none of the modern 
> > overtones back then.
> > 
> > > > Some was higgin it
> > > > Some was kissin it
> > > > Some was huggin it
> > 
> > I never heard 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Enemy of Mankind spreading Negativity

[Bhairitu]

On 04/26/2013 07:49 PM, authfriend wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>> On 04/26/2013 02:38 PM, Alex Stanley wrote:
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
 FFL Moderators, List Owner, Friends; as a motion for consideration, I move 
 we consider the adoption of the more correct translation of the Saha Nav 
 hymn as:

 The Fairfieldlife (FFL) Resolution of Mutual Respect:

 Om ! May the Unified Field protect us both together;
 May It nourish us both together;
 May we work conjointly with great energy,
 May our study be vigorous and effective;
 May we not mutually dispute or may we not hate any.

 -Buck

>>> Buck, I'm totally on the same wavelength with respect to this important 
>>> matter, and I'd give it my full attention and consideration, if only I 
>>> could just stop thinking about your tits.
>>>
>> I think the two of us could accommodate Buck with his own
>> custom version of FFL for a measly $150K.  It could auto
>> generate all the posts he wants to see.  No one would see
>> it but him of course. :-D
> Yeah, but will it have any tits?

Tits will cost extra.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[Emily Reyn]

Raunchy, I think Curtis is correct in his interpretation, in terms of 
historical context and what the author of those lyrics was intending to 
communicate to his audience, at least that's how it hits me in the moment this 
morning.  The song lyrics contain, of course, a cultural element and there are 
many blues songs that speak to the black man loving his woman and how she "done 
him wrong", etc., etc.  The black culture also brings a different attitude 
towards sexuality than our puritan caucasian one does and it speaks to that as 
well.  And in the black culture, it is true that the woman is in charge.  
Smile.    



>
> From: raunchydog 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 8:51 AM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song
> 
>
>
>  
>
>
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> wrote:
>>
>> This song is too beautiful to be subject to the FFL grinder.
>> I looked up the original discussion and I mentioned the last verse when I 
>> sent the song originally with Mike Seager singing it, not when Emily posted 
>> the lyrics.  I considered them interesting no matter what analysis you take, 
>> although now on closer examination, the whole context of the song makes the 
>> intention of the songwriter more clear. I was not sending Emily some dark 
>> message by pointing out the last verse for her comment.  Mike mumbles his 
>> words a bit and I wanted to make sure I got her take on the verse to see if 
>> it matched my GFs. At the time it did.
>> 
>> Emily:
>> 
>> "Interesting take from your girlfriend - I was curious as I wasn't sure how 
>> to interpret what I was reading and my first take was a more sinister 
>> nature. I prefer your girlfriend's thought and the last line = "try to tear 
>> my kingdom down" leaves room for exactly what she's talking about. Ha. 
>> 
>> 
>>   Here is my take on the meaning of the lyrics:
>> 
>> 
>> > >
>> > > Roustabout
>> 
>> Technical name of a job loading at docks.
>> 
>> > >
>> > > Oh you banjo roustabout
>> > > When you goin to the shore
>> > > I got a good gal on that other shore
>> > > Baby don't you want to go
>> > >
>> > > If I had an old pairs of wings
>> > > Like Noah's dove
>> > > I'd sail from pine to pine
>> > > Looking for my own true love
>> 
>> Idealism and romantic/naive hope expressed in those two lines.
>> 
>> > >
>> > > I'd a listened to what my momma said
>>  I wouldn't be here today
>> > > But me being young and foolish too
>> > > women lead me astray
>> 
>> This is the key to understanding why my GF's take was more reasonable than 
>> my initial take on the song. (In my defense I was a little caught up in 
>> mastering an old time banjo style, and that sucked up most of my neurons.)
>> 
>> In this verse we see that he had gotten played by the woman, not that she 
>> was a victim.  He is painting himself as a victim.
>> 
>> > >
>> > > Who's gonna shoe your pretty little feet
>> > > And who's gonna glove your hand
>> > > And who's gonna do your rockabye
>> > > When your man's in a distant land
>> 
>> Poor me, but when I leave you THEN you'll be sorry!
>> 
>> > >
>> > > My wife left home last night
>> > > I'll tell you where I found her
>> 
>> She left voluntarily.  Think of how different it would be to say : I threw 
>> my wife out last night...
>> 
>> She had an appointment.
>> 
>> > > Lying down in the pines>
>> 
>> "Lying down" lacks any sinister overtones.
>> 
>> > > A gang of boys around her>
>> 
>> 
>> This is probably what set me off in the wrong direction originally.  I 
>> suspect that "gang" was equivalent to "group" and had none of the modern 
>> overtones back then.
>> 
>> > > Some was higgin it
>> > > Some was kissin it
>> > > Some was huggin it
>> 
>> I never heard any sexual assault start by describing the initial contact 
>> this way.  News alert:  The suspect proceeded to hug and kiss the victim...
>> 
>> 
>> > > Some was kneeling down>
>> 
>> I've seen some porn.  (Always accidentally when I was a victim of a pop up 
>> ad, I promise.)  This created an image and may have been more of why I 
>> misunderstood it initially.
>> 
>> > > There more rascal hangin round
>> > > Try to tear my kingdom down
>> > >
>> > > Oh my lord.
>> 
>> 
>> He is the victim, not her.  He is expressing his own angst at how she just 
>> served his ass with a big old bucket of a man's worst nightmare for a woman 
>> he loves.  The songwriter brilliantly took a cuckolded spouse story and 
>> turned it into a Tarantino  thrill-o rama.
>> 
>
>So the woman leaves her man (poor sap ) and gets herself gang raped to "serve 
>his ass..." and *he's* the victim. Good one, Curtis. Thanks for giving us an 
>interesting peek into of how to change context and turn logic on it's head. 
>Your interpretation speaks volumes. 
>
>> Here is another version Mike used to do that is more lighthearted:
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwEdMRCP3sc
>> 
>> I love the line: My old misses

[FairfieldLife] Our little Dutch girl

[turquoiseb]

Already dressed in orange for the upcoming Queen's Day festivities.

 
[https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/381411_101515592\
74676743_324462293_n.jpg]

Vermeer would have killed to be able to paint her.

 
[http://en.wahooart.com/Art.nsf/O/8Y2V7U/$File/Jan-Vermeer-Girl-with-a-P\
earl-Earring.JPG]

Re: [FairfieldLife] Analysis of Routabout song

[Emily Reyn]

Dear Curtis, thank you so much for this.  Part of me was thinking that given 
the time frame and aesthetics and lyrics and subject of the whole song - i.e. 
"gang rape" (such a callous and violent act) couldn't have been what was 
intended by the writer of those lyrics.  Yes, it is a beautiful song - poetry 
in motion.  It goes straight to the heart.  You have done justice to the song 
and interpretation and corrected any mistaken perceptions on my part that I was 
having in the moment.  Again, thank you.  My bad. Smile.  

Have a great day.  Sincerely, Emily



>
> From: curtisdeltablues 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 8:04 AM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Analysis of Routabout song
> 
>
>
>  
>This song is too beautiful to be subject to the FFL grinder.
>I looked up the original discussion and I mentioned the last verse when I sent 
>the song originally with Mike Seager singing it, not when Emily posted the 
>lyrics.  I considered them interesting no matter what analysis you take, 
>although now on closer examination, the whole context of the song makes the 
>intention of the songwriter more clear. I was not sending Emily some dark 
>message by pointing out the last verse for her comment.  Mike mumbles his 
>words a bit and I wanted to make sure I got her take on the verse to see if it 
>matched my GFs. At the time it did.
>
>Emily:
>
>"Interesting take from your girlfriend - I was curious as I wasn't sure how to 
>interpret what I was reading and my first take was a more sinister nature. I 
>prefer your girlfriend's thought and the last line = "try to tear my kingdom 
>down" leaves room for exactly what she's talking about. Ha. 
>
>Here is my take on the meaning of the lyrics:
>
>> >
>> > Roustabout
>
>Technical name of a job loading at docks.
>
>> >
>> > Oh you banjo roustabout
>> > When you goin to the shore
>> > I got a good gal on that other shore
>> > Baby don't you want to go
>> >
>> > If I had an old pairs of wings
>> > Like Noah's dove
>> > I'd sail from pine to pine
>> > Looking for my own true love
>
>Idealism and romantic/naive hope expressed in those two lines.
>
>> >
>> > I'd a listened to what my momma said
>I wouldn't be here today
>> > But me being young and foolish too
>> > women lead me astray
>
>This is the key to understanding why my GF's take was more reasonable than my 
>initial take on the song. (In my defense I was a little caught up in mastering 
>an old time banjo style, and that sucked up most of my neurons.)
>
>In this verse we see that he had gotten played by the woman, not that she was 
>a victim.  He is painting himself as a victim.
>
>> >
>> > Who's gonna shoe your pretty little feet
>> > And who's gonna glove your hand
>> > And who's gonna do your rockabye
>> > When your man's in a distant land
>
>Poor me, but when I leave you THEN you'll be sorry!
>
>> >
>> > My wife left home last night
>> > I'll tell you where I found her
>
>She left voluntarily.  Think of how different it would be to say : I threw my 
>wife out last night...
>
>She had an appointment.
>
>> > Lying down in the pines>
>
>"Lying down" lacks any sinister overtones.
>
>> > A gang of boys around her>
>
>This is probably what set me off in the wrong direction originally.  I suspect 
>that "gang" was equivalent to "group" and had none of the modern overtones 
>back then.
>
>> > Some was higgin it
>> > Some was kissin it
>> > Some was huggin it
>
>I never heard any sexual assault start by describing the initial contact this 
>way.  News alert:  The suspect proceeded to hug and kiss the victim...
>
>> > Some was kneeling down>
>
>I've seen some porn.  (Always accidentally when I was a victim of a pop up ad, 
>I promise.)  This created an image and may have been more of why I 
>misunderstood it initially.
>
>> > There more rascal hangin round
>> > Try to tear my kingdom down
>> >
>> > Oh my lord.
>
>He is the victim, not her.  He is expressing his own angst at how she just 
>served his ass with a big old bucket of a man's worst nightmare for a woman he 
>loves.  The songwriter brilliantly took a cuckolded spouse story and turned it 
>into a Tarantino  thrill-o rama.
>
>Here is another version Mike used to do that is more lighthearted:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwEdMRCP3sc
>
>I love the line: My old misses had a dog blind as he could be, but every night 
>round supper time, I'd swear that dog could see!
>
>He downplays the ending and I think now I know why.  I usually drop it out for 
>my shows, unless I have an audience  who is really engaged in the meaning of 
>the lyrics, like the group I played for last night.  I don't quiz them on 
>their take at the end, but it definitely has their attention and they respond 
>enthusiastically whatever their interpretation.  It is very emotional to 
>perform, this is trouble with a capital T anyway you cut it. I step away from 
>the mike and stand in the middle of the room and let them hear it in

[FairfieldLife] Re: Analysis of Routabout song

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> This song is too beautiful to be subject to the FFL grinder.
> I looked up the original discussion and I mentioned the last verse when I 
> sent the song originally with Mike Seager singing it, not when Emily posted 
> the lyrics.  I considered them interesting no matter what analysis you take, 
> although now on closer examination, the whole context of the song makes the 
> intention of the songwriter more clear. I was not sending Emily some dark 
> message by pointing out the last verse for her comment.  Mike mumbles his 
> words a bit and I wanted to make sure I got her take on the verse to see if 
> it matched my GFs. At the time it did.
> 
> Emily:
> 
> "Interesting take from your girlfriend - I was curious as I wasn't sure how 
> to interpret what I was reading and my first take was a more sinister nature. 
> I prefer your girlfriend's thought and the last line = "try to tear my 
> kingdom down" leaves room for exactly what she's talking about. Ha. 
> 
> 
>   Here is my take on the meaning of the lyrics:
> 
> 
> > >
> > > Roustabout
> 
> Technical name of a job loading at docks.
> 
> > >
> > > Oh you banjo roustabout
> > > When you goin to the shore
> > > I got a good gal on that other shore
> > > Baby don't you want to go
> > >
> > > If I had an old pairs of wings
> > > Like Noah's dove
> > > I'd sail from pine to pine
> > > Looking for my own true love
> 
> Idealism and romantic/naive hope expressed in those two lines.
> 
> > >
> > > I'd a listened to what my momma said
>  I wouldn't be here today
> > > But me being young and foolish too
> > > women lead me astray
> 
> This is the key to understanding why my GF's take was more reasonable than my 
> initial take on the song. (In my defense I was a little caught up in 
> mastering an old time banjo style, and that sucked up most of my neurons.)
> 
> In this verse we see that he had gotten played by the woman, not that she was 
> a victim.  He is painting himself as a victim.
> 
> > >
> > > Who's gonna shoe your pretty little feet
> > > And who's gonna glove your hand
> > > And who's gonna do your rockabye
> > > When your man's in a distant land
> 
> Poor me, but when I leave you THEN you'll be sorry!
> 
> > >
> > > My wife left home last night
> > > I'll tell you where I found her
> 
> She left voluntarily.  Think of how different it would be to say : I threw my 
> wife out last night...
> 
> She had an appointment.
> 
> > > Lying down in the pines>
> 
> "Lying down" lacks any sinister overtones.
> 
> > > A gang of boys around her>
> 
> 
> This is probably what set me off in the wrong direction originally.  I 
> suspect that "gang" was equivalent to "group" and had none of the modern 
> overtones back then.
> 
> > > Some was higgin it
> > > Some was kissin it
> > > Some was huggin it
> 
> I never heard any sexual assault start by describing the initial contact this 
> way.  News alert:  The suspect proceeded to hug and kiss the victim...
> 
> 
> > > Some was kneeling down>
> 
> I've seen some porn.  (Always accidentally when I was a victim of a pop up 
> ad, I promise.)  This created an image and may have been more of why I 
> misunderstood it initially.
> 
> > > There more rascal hangin round
> > > Try to tear my kingdom down
> > >
> > > Oh my lord.
> 
> 
> He is the victim, not her.  He is expressing his own angst at how she just 
> served his ass with a big old bucket of a man's worst nightmare for a woman 
> he loves.  The songwriter brilliantly took a cuckolded spouse story and 
> turned it into a Tarantino  thrill-o rama.
> 

So the woman leaves her man (poor sap ) and gets herself gang raped to "serve 
his ass..." and *he's* the victim. Good one, Curtis. Thanks for giving us an 
interesting peek into of how to change context and turn logic on it's head. 
Your interpretation speaks volumes. 
 
> Here is another version Mike used to do that is more lighthearted:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwEdMRCP3sc
> 
> I love the line: My old misses had a dog blind as he could be, but every 
> night round supper time, I'd swear that dog could see!
> 
> He downplays the ending and I think now I know why.  I usually drop it out 
> for my shows, unless I have an audience  who is really engaged in the meaning 
> of the lyrics, like the group I played for last night.  I don't quiz them on 
> their take at the end, but it definitely has their attention and they respond 
> enthusiastically whatever their interpretation.  It is very emotional to 
> perform, this is trouble with a capital T anyway you cut it. I step away from 
> the mike and stand in the middle of the room and let them hear it in the 
> natural way it would have been performed decades ago.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Hi Share,
> I have been reading through all these messages over this original expression 
> of yours. I honestly do not see how it is possible on a public forum with 
> neither person physically known to the other, with no prior relationship at 
> all, for someone to psychologically ultimately violate another person. 
> 
> If someone addresses you in a way you don't like, then respond by all means, 
> in terms of yourself. No need to place the burden of your feelings on the 
> forum poster. And, again, this is a public Internet forum. As you said 
> yourself, you didn't have a relationship with Robin.
> 
> Why not say at the time, "Hey Robin, you do not have the
> right to ask me such questions. I am comfortable working
> on this on my own."?

If I may interject to clarify something:

At the time Robin made his remarks to which Share four
weeks later took violent exception, Share *did* indicate
some mild discomfort with the issue he had raised. He
backed off immediately and apologized for making her
uncomfortable, explaining that what he had described was
*his* experience of what she had said in her previous post
and that he had never meant to impose his experience on
her.

See that exchange here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/342376

They continued to chat about this-a and that-a, the issue
apparently having been resolved to the satisfaction of
both.

Three days later, Share suddenly declared an end to their
conversations because of his initial remarks.

However, she insisted that she had not "suffered or [felt]
insulted," nor did she think Robin was being "hurtful or
cruel." She simply didn't want "to pursue the theme of
whether or not" she was being the real Share or of her 
"alleged hyper positivity."

Robin was baffled because he *hadn't* pursued either "theme."
As it turned out, her reappraisal at that point was due to
a misunderstanding on *her* part of what he had said
initially. It took some time before the nature of her misunderstanding became 
clear. That's another whole story;
it was rather convoluted, to say the least.

Anyway, the "psychological rape" accusation came four
weeks later. According to Share, she had considered his
remarks "psychological rape" at the time, although she
hadn't yet come up with the term, and what she said at the
time did not seem to indicate any significant distress on
her part.

OK, I'm done. Pardon the interruption. You've made excellent
points, but so much of this issue depends on knowing exactly
what happened when.


> By casting a label of absolute power on him solves nothing. Not only is it 
> not true, it doesn't really establish your boundary of personal power.
> 
> Forums are very interesting entities, moved by thought power alone, 
> observation and response. Anyone contributing has absolute power over their 
> identity here, including you, and including Robin. There is nothing easier.   

Re: [FairfieldLife] A feeling about the TMO

[Mike Dixon]

Really! I stand corrected. I can't imagine how much a SS benefit check would be 
worth with a twelve dollar a month contribution.

 


 From: Michael Jackson 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] A feeling about the TMO
  
 
   
 
Actually when I was on staff, MIU did take out Social Security from our 
stipends, so the 75 a month was actually about 69 bucks when we got it.

 


 From: Mike Dixon 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] A feeling about the TMO
  
  
You would have to have an enormous amount of faith to devote your life to the 
TM movement. Very low pay, if any and no retirement. The TMO doesn't make 
contributions towards SS or any other federal benefit program so when you're 
too old to benefit them, what do you do? Hope they have some little closet for 
you to stay in, a bowl of rice to eat, perfect health and you're enlightened?
 


 From: Michael Jackson 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:30 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] A feeling about the TMO
  
  
This is something I posted on MUM Secrets in response to another post:


I agree with a lot of what Taylor says, but on the issue of staff not 
being paid, that is a blanket policy that I admit I willingly accepted 
when I was on staff cuz I wanted to be in the Dome, but it is not too 
good for the workers and especially for someone who spends years on faculty 
with no retirement etc. I admit I am about 
to make a blanket statement but the Movement seems to function from a 
"what can you do for us" attitude rather than what can we do for the 
people who support us. They seem to feel that teaching us to do TM is 
the only thing they needed to do and all else is given to them. If they 
had put as much time, effort, energy and thought to serving the needs of people 
in a concrete way through the years as they did to trying to get us to give 
them all our money and allegiance, I would still be with them.   
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily bad news about the ego

[Emily Reyn]

So, do either of you think that Xeno's find on the definition was better?  
That's cool.  Did you read the full article that Judy posted that Xeno pulled 
from?  Is that closer?  My reply to Xeno would have been the very same even if 
I didn't post that definition, which I saw as similar to the one he posted in 
nature and spirit (I included it to augment my response, but it wasn't the main 
point) Do you get that?  Did you understand what the main point was?  

Doesn't really matter...Share is going with her own definition. That's O.K. - 
she isn't presenting a thesis on it to a committee, after all.  

Re:  "In a moment of clarity such as prolonged extreme upset can produce, the 
phrase psychologically raped came to me.  

By that I meant that Robin attributed thoughts and feelings to me that I wasn't 
having and he did so uninvited, too forcefully and insidiously."  

Share, this is your perception and it has never changed.  You are being true to 
your own experience in the moment.  

"And it was an assault not just on my emotions or feelings, thus your new 
definition is inadequate."  

O.K.  Let's break it down:

Robin1: You must excuse my presumption here (because it
is very likely I am wrong) but I must tell you that in 
this post I get to feel the most Share that is there 
severed (perhaps not consciously:)) from her philosophy. 
It just *seemed* to me that all you wrote here came out 
of your experience unmediated by any final beliefs about 
what is real. Like a beautiful accident of Share making 
herself available beyond what would be possible were she 
solidly, as she almost always is, behind her spiritual 
orientation to people and reality (which, in the 
weaponry and ordnance deployed by some of us more 
irascible FFL posters, is sometimes--silently, mind 
you--denigrated as being overly positive--and therefore 
impotent:)).

Share1: hi Robin, yes I will excuse your presumption if 
you excuse my not going down this particular rabbit hole 
again. You know, the one about my being so positive yada 
yada. As for my being impotent, it's not been my 
intention to be, uh, potent. So no problemo. Sigh, btw, 
I notice I'm feeling grumpy this morning. Blaming it on 
the sugar I ate yesterday. Somehow I've become very 
sensitive to sugar. Anyway, Robin, apologies for taking 
it out on you.
>From what Robin said, you gathered that he was characterizing you, personally 
>(with ill intent?) as " overly positive...yada, yada yada" and therefore you, 
>personally, as "impotent."  Is this what you understood about what he was 
>saying?

It seems to me that you were absolutely reacting emotionally and that is what 
you apologized for - taking it out on him.  What else, other than your emotions 
and feelings about those words that he chose to use, was Robin assaulting?  









>
> From: seventhray27 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:20 AM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily bad news about the ego
> 
>
>
>  
>So true Share.  How strange to introduce this notion of "emotional rape".  I 
>am sorry to say that it was far off the mark.  Of course the term, 
>"psychological rape", nailed it exactly.  Maybe Emily felt that she needed to 
>distinquish herself in someway, by hilighting some new facet to an already 
>overwrought discussion.  
>It was a good attempt, but unfortunately not all attempts work.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLYAs_ucmbs
>
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
>>
>> Emily I've heard that what happens is that the ego gains cosmic status.  Of 
>> course just knowing that can be a slippery slope for some egos ha ha.
>> As to The Other Matter:  I never knew the phrase emotional rape til I read 
>> your post last night.  I knew no official definitions when I made my 
>> accusation to Robin.  In a moment of clarity such as prolonged extreme upset 
>> can produce, the phrase psychologically raped came to me.  By that I meant 
>> that Robin attributed thoughts and feelings to me that I wasn't having and 
>> he did so uninvited, too forcefully and insidiously.  And it was an assault 
>> not just on my emotions or feelings, thus your new definition is inadequate. 
>>  Sorry and welcome back.   
>>
>
> 
>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: J gets another fact wrong and S apologizes to R

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Poor archives, still being selectively eschewed by Judy.
> Correcting Judy:  I joined FFL in May 2012 and Robin
> rejoined in June 2012.

You are absolutely right, my mistake, and my apologies.

Robin *first* joined FFL in June 2011, left in January
2012, and returned in June. You joined in May 2012,
as you say. Apparently I conflated the two June dates.
I should have double-checked.

However, my point stands: You were not new either to FFL
or to Robin at the time he made the remarks that you
decided four weeks later constituted "psychological rape."
You had been on FFL for three-and-a-half months, and your
conversations with Robin had begun in early July, two
months previously.



>  Aren't you all glad I straightened THAT out?!  Dear Robin, practicing just 
>in case:  please forgive me for not joining FFL in the same month as you did 
>thus rendering Judy a LIAR.  I hope you can understand.  Shalom and all the 
>best always, Share
> PS  May I take this opportunity to wish you Happy Birthday a few days early? 
>

[FairfieldLife] Analysis of Routabout song

[curtisdeltablues]

This song is too beautiful to be subject to the FFL grinder.
I looked up the original discussion and I mentioned the last verse when I sent 
the song originally with Mike Seager singing it, not when Emily posted the 
lyrics.  I considered them interesting no matter what analysis you take, 
although now on closer examination, the whole context of the song makes the 
intention of the songwriter more clear. I was not sending Emily some dark 
message by pointing out the last verse for her comment.  Mike mumbles his words 
a bit and I wanted to make sure I got her take on the verse to see if it 
matched my GFs. At the time it did.

Emily:

"Interesting take from your girlfriend - I was curious as I wasn't sure how to 
interpret what I was reading and my first take was a more sinister nature. I 
prefer your girlfriend's thought and the last line = "try to tear my kingdom 
down" leaves room for exactly what she's talking about. Ha. 


  Here is my take on the meaning of the lyrics:


> >
> > Roustabout

Technical name of a job loading at docks.

> >
> > Oh you banjo roustabout
> > When you goin to the shore
> > I got a good gal on that other shore
> > Baby don't you want to go
> >
> > If I had an old pairs of wings
> > Like Noah's dove
> > I'd sail from pine to pine
> > Looking for my own true love

Idealism and romantic/naive hope expressed in those two lines.

> >
> > I'd a listened to what my momma said
 I wouldn't be here today
> > But me being young and foolish too
> > women lead me astray

This is the key to understanding why my GF's take was more reasonable than my 
initial take on the song. (In my defense I was a little caught up in mastering 
an old time banjo style, and that sucked up most of my neurons.)

In this verse we see that he had gotten played by the woman, not that she was a 
victim.  He is painting himself as a victim.

> >
> > Who's gonna shoe your pretty little feet
> > And who's gonna glove your hand
> > And who's gonna do your rockabye
> > When your man's in a distant land

Poor me, but when I leave you THEN you'll be sorry!

> >
> > My wife left home last night
> > I'll tell you where I found her

She left voluntarily.  Think of how different it would be to say : I threw my 
wife out last night...

She had an appointment.

> > Lying down in the pines>

"Lying down" lacks any sinister overtones.

> > A gang of boys around her>


This is probably what set me off in the wrong direction originally.  I suspect 
that "gang" was equivalent to "group" and had none of the modern overtones back 
then.

> > Some was higgin it
> > Some was kissin it
> > Some was huggin it

I never heard any sexual assault start by describing the initial contact this 
way.  News alert:  The suspect proceeded to hug and kiss the victim...


> > Some was kneeling down>

I've seen some porn.  (Always accidentally when I was a victim of a pop up ad, 
I promise.)  This created an image and may have been more of why I 
misunderstood it initially.

> > There more rascal hangin round
> > Try to tear my kingdom down
> >
> > Oh my lord.


He is the victim, not her.  He is expressing his own angst at how she just 
served his ass with a big old bucket of a man's worst nightmare for a woman he 
loves.  The songwriter brilliantly took a cuckolded spouse story and turned it 
into a Tarantino  thrill-o rama.

Here is another version Mike used to do that is more lighthearted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwEdMRCP3sc

I love the line: My old misses had a dog blind as he could be, but every night 
round supper time, I'd swear that dog could see!

He downplays the ending and I think now I know why.  I usually drop it out for 
my shows, unless I have an audience  who is really engaged in the meaning of 
the lyrics, like the group I played for last night.  I don't quiz them on their 
take at the end, but it definitely has their attention and they respond 
enthusiastically whatever their interpretation.  It is very emotional to 
perform, this is trouble with a capital T anyway you cut it. I step away from 
the mike and stand in the middle of the room and let them hear it in the 
natural way it would have been performed decades ago. 


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape is impossible on FFL

[doctordumbass]

Hi Share,
I have been reading through all these messages over this original expression of 
yours. I honestly do not see how it is possible on a public forum with neither 
person physically known to the other, with no prior relationship at all, for 
someone to psychologically ultimately violate another person. 

If someone addresses you in a way you don't like, then respond by all means, in 
terms of yourself. No need to place the burden of your feelings on the forum 
poster. And, again, this is a public Internet forum. As you said yourself, you 
didn't have a relationship with Robin.

Why not say at the time, "Hey Robin, you do not have the right to ask me such 
questions. I am comfortable working on this on my own."?
By casting a label of absolute power on him solves nothing. Not only is it not 
true, it doesn't really establish your boundary of personal power.

Forums are very interesting entities, moved by thought power alone, observation 
and response. Anyone contributing has absolute power over their identity here, 
including you, and including Robin. There is nothing easier.   

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Xeno, I've been out of town today.  Shopping for my foray into the big 
> city.  Thank you for this even though I know you did not write it for me or 
> for my big, fat, stupid ego.  Hope you won't gag when I say how healing this 
> is for me to read.  Oy, more ego!  What you did here, the time and 
> attention you put into it, really feels like a labor of love, love for what 
> is.  I didn't even freak out too much when I read that I did say 
> psychologically raped instead of rape.  But I remember how I felt, 
> especially at that point in time when ego had been invaded uninvited and 
> pulverized for a few weeks and not only by Robin.  Extremely upset and still 
> reeling from events I'd never experienced before.  So out popped a phrase 
> that I had not used before nor that was so familiar too me.  But felt spot 
> on nonetheless.  
> 
> 
> I'm so grateful that I'm gonna shut up now (-:
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 1:00 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Psychological Rape
>  
> 
> 
>   
> Psychological rape is a term that does not seem to have much of a fixed 
> professional definition in psychology. It sometimes is applied to parents who 
> drug their children to keep them under control. On a common sense level, the 
> term would seem to imply a kind of invasiveness into one's private space. 
> That private space is the ego, our sense of individuality and self. There are 
> other private spaces, such as the experience that some call transcendental 
> consciousness, which at a certain point in practice, seems deep inside. But 
> this space (TC) has no characteristics other than the sense of wakefulness, 
> so it really does not do anything, or provide one with an individual 
> identity; it has no identity other than bare existence, it is neither private 
> or public, though the experience seems to be restricted to the individual 
> body, which we gather from the experience of coming out of a deep meditation, 
> that that experience occurred somehow in what we are. 
> 
> Share used this term 'psychological rape' in reference to Robin. I take this 
> to mean invasion of that personal space we call the ego, our sense of self as 
> an individual person, or at a minimum, the sense that our human body is a 
> locus or point of focus for experience. The ego is a big problem in 
> spirituality because it is seen as an obstacle to universal experience, it is 
> the process that makes us seem as if we are special in some way. It divides 
> us from everything else. So one way to attempt to get rid of the ego, so we 
> can experience unity (non-division with the world about us) is to try to 
> manipulate it or attack it. 
> 
> But this is the point of maximum resistance. The ego is that in us which 
> wants us as individuals to survive and never die. Subjugating the ego has to 
> be an inside job. It has to be eaten away from inside. This is why meditative 
> techniques may be important because they give our experience a wider 
> dimension than just the ego, they put the ego in a larger space. Because we 
> are not really our ego (so the spiritual talk goes), eventually, if we are 
> lucky, we begin to see that this thing we call our ego, our 'me' is not such 
> a hot thing. The ego cannot really be taken down much until a substantial 
> experience of unity dawns because unity provides a big enough space around 
> ego to manoeuvre it into lesser importance. CC, experiencing yourself as pure 
> consciousness inside, as silence inside while in activity is too small a 
> puddle of spiritual value to kick ego off its perch. We can be ass holes in 
> waking awareness, ass holes in CC, and even ass holes in unity. The
>  ego is the most subtle beast in the fie

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A feeling about the TMO

[Michael Jackson]

Dunno - Buck was real good to post any news on Girish's sexual indiscretions, 
but he hasn't posted anything lately 




 From: Susan 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 10:45 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A feeling about the TMO
 


  
Most of the people teaching TM outside of Fairfield have income or support from 
parents or inheritances.  The TMO does provide some of them with a real salary 
and sometimes housing, but not really enough to live on and certainly not 
enough to save a dime for the soon to be here golden years.
In the MUM realm, I am not sure what those people have coming to them for 
retirement.  I think the top people are doing just fine and will be taken care 
of or have already had accounts set up.  As for professors and long time 
staff.not sure.

And wahtever happened to Girish and all that and the TMO finances of India?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> You would have to have an enormous amount of faith to devote your life to the 
> TM movement. Very low pay, if any and no retirement. The TMO doesn't make 
> contributions towards SS or any other federal benefit program so when you're 
> too old to benefit them, what do you do? Hope they have some little closet 
> for you to stay in, a bowl of rice to eat, perfect health and you're 
> enlightened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Michael Jackson 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:30 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] A feeling about the TMO
> 
>   
> 
> This is something I posted on MUM Secrets in response to another post:
> 
> 
> I agree with a lot of what Taylor says, but on the issue of staff not 
> being paid, that is a blanket policy that I admit I willingly accepted 
> when I was on staff cuz I wanted to be in the Dome, but it is not too 
> good for the workers and especially for someone who spends years on faculty 
> with no retirement etc. I admit I am about 
> to make a blanket statement but the Movement seems to function from a 
> "what can you do for us" attitude rather than what can we do for the 
> people who support us. They seem to feel that teaching us to do TM is 
> the only thing they needed to do and all else is given to them. If they 
> had put as much time, effort, energy and thought to serving the needs of 
> people in a concrete way through the years as they did to trying to get us to 
> give them all our money and allegiance, I would still be with them.
>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] A feeling about the TMO

[Michael Jackson]

Actually when I was on staff, MIU did take out Social Security from our 
stipends, so the 75 a month was actually about 69 bucks when we got it.





 From: Mike Dixon 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] A feeling about the TMO
 


  
You would have to have an enormous amount of faith to devote your life to the 
TM movement. Very low pay, if any and no retirement. The TMO doesn't make 
contributions towards SS or any other federal benefit program so when you're 
too old to benefit them, what do you do? Hope they have some little closet for 
you to stay in, a bowl of rice to eat, perfect health and you're enlightened?

From: Michael Jackson 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:30 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] A feeling about the TMO
 
  
This is something I posted on MUM Secrets in response to another post:


I agree with a lot of what Taylor says, but on the issue of staff not 
being paid, that is a blanket policy that I admit I willingly accepted 
when I was on staff cuz I wanted to be in the Dome, but it is not too 
good for the workers and especially for someone who spends years on faculty 
with no retirement etc. I admit I am about 
to make a blanket statement but the Movement seems to function from a 
"what can you do for us" attitude rather than what can we do for the 
people who support us. They seem to feel that teaching us to do TM is 
the only thing they needed to do and all else is given to them. If they 
had put as much time, effort, energy and thought to serving the needs of people 
in a concrete way through the years as they did to trying to get us to give 
them all our money and allegiance, I would still be with them.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry

[Emily Reyn]

Steve:  This is the problem with the internet.  You could not see that I was 
typing away doing a mindfulness technique watching the words that rolled off my 
fingertips.  Hence, my surprise at the little tangent I took towards Curtis.  
Very relaxed.  In no way was I frustrated - now, I was frustrated when I left 
as my taxes were looming and I had procrastinated on all that all year long.  



>
> From: seventhray27 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:45 AM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
> 
>
>
>  
>I don't know Emily, but "frustration", I would say was a good description of 
>what came through on your posts yesterday. But that is understandable.  
>Returning from time spent for rest and relaxation can often be difficult, so I 
>am understanding.
>
>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote:
>>
>> Do you think he has some inherent frustration growing about being Share's 
>> "knight in shining armor?"
>> 
>> Wait, is that a kind and sensitive thing to say?  I hope so.  (Alex, I 
>> have applied to volunteer as Saint FFL - I might need that application 
>> back...)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> > From: authfriend authfriend@...
>> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>> >Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 9:05 PM
>> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry
>> > 
>> >
>> >
>> >  
>> >The strange thing is, Steve *used* to be a relatively
>> >nice fella, who would occasionally make at least a quasi-
>> >intelligent post, sometimes even a funny one. He was
>> >friendly and cheery, rarely attacked anybody, wasn't at
>> >all obnoxious. And he was his own person, not a toady.
>> >
>> >Something has happened or is happening to him, something
>> >distinctly ungood.
>> >
>> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" awoelflebater@ wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > 
>> >> > Judy, I get it that subtle distinctions are not your strong point. So,
>> >> > I'm just going to let you reflect on it, and then maybe it'll come to
>> >> > you.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Get back to me if you get some inspiration. I'll be rooting for you.
>> >> > (-:
>> >> 
>> >> Dear Steve, I implore you to stop. Stop now. Even though it's too late, 
>> >> you need to get a grip. This is starting to become embarrassing. You are 
>> >> no longer anyone's champion, you are just some guy acting stupid. I would 
>> >> say this even if it was me you thought you were defending.
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > You don't die from psychological rape. You die from being murdered.
>> >> > > > There is a difference. Sorry about that.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > My *God*, you are stupid.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Let's say you got mugged.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > A person doesn't get mugged all by themselves. There has
>> >> > > to be a person who commits the mugging.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Is there a subtle difference between saying a person
>> >> > > was mugged and calling the person who mugged him a
>> >> > > mugger?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > (Thinking time required to adjust for Stevie's stupidity:
>> >> > > about 3 seconds.)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Is this some ego-deflating spiritual practice our Stevie
>> >> > > has undertaken, to repeatedly come up with laughably
>> >> > > idiotic remarks to make himself look bad?
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> >
>>
>
> 
>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: A feeling about the TMO

[Susan]

Most of the people teaching TM outside of Fairfield have income or support from 
parents or inheritances.  The TMO does provide some of them with a real salary 
and sometimes housing, but not really enough to live on and certainly not 
enough to save a dime for the soon to be here golden years.
In the MUM realm, I am not sure what those people have coming to them for 
retirement.  I think the top people are doing just fine and will be taken care 
of or have already had accounts set up.  As for professors and long time 
staff.not sure.

And wahtever happened to Girish and all that and the TMO finances of India?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> You would have to have an enormous amount of faith to devote your life to the 
> TM movement. Very low pay, if any and no retirement. The TMO doesn't make 
> contributions towards SS or any other federal benefit program so when you're 
> too old to benefit them, what do you do? Hope they have some little closet 
> for you to stay in, a bowl of rice to eat, perfect health and you're 
> enlightened?
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  From: Michael Jackson 
> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
> Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:30 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] A feeling about the TMO
>   
>    
>  
> This is something I posted on MUM Secrets in response to another post:
> 
> 
> I agree with a lot of what Taylor says, but on the issue of staff not 
> being paid, that is a blanket policy that I admit I willingly accepted 
> when I was on staff cuz I wanted to be in the Dome, but it is not too 
> good for the workers and especially for someone who spends years on faculty 
> with no retirement etc. I admit I am about 
> to make a blanket statement but the Movement seems to function from a 
> "what can you do for us" attitude rather than what can we do for the 
> people who support us. They seem to feel that teaching us to do TM is 
> the only thing they needed to do and all else is given to them. If they 
> had put as much time, effort, energy and thought to serving the needs of 
> people in a concrete way through the years as they did to trying to get us to 
> give them all our money and allegiance, I would still be with them.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] to Emily bad news about the ego

[Emily Reyn]

Dear Share:  First, remember I don't speak your language - think of me as a kid 
in, oh, 4th grade.  It would be kind of you to speak to me as if explaining all 
this to a child.  Assume that I have a open inquisitive little face and that my 
demeanor is nothing but friendly.  There is a barrette askew in my hair.  

My original question to you was:  

"Curiously, is TM a technique that professes to address the ego? How? Are there 
stated goals related to one's ego and the purpose of TM?  Yes, I ask because I 
don't know."

Your answer was:    

"Emily I've heard that what happens is that the ego gains cosmic status."  Of 
course just knowing that can be a slippery slope for some egos ha ha.


What is cosmic status?  How does the ego gain such a status?  When does the the 
ego gain such a status?  Why is this a slippery slope for some egos?  



>
> From: Share Long 
>To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
>Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:08 AM
>Subject: [FairfieldLife] to Emily bad news about the ego
> 
>
>
>  
>Emily I've heard that what happens is that the ego gains cosmic status.  Of 
>course just knowing that can be a slippery slope for some egos ha ha.
>As to The Other Matter:  I never knew the phrase emotional rape til I read 
>your post last night.  I knew no official definitions when I made my 
>accusation to Robin.  In a moment of clarity such as prolonged extreme upset 
>can produce, the phrase psychologically raped came to me.  By that I meant 
>that Robin attributed thoughts and feelings to me that I wasn't having and he 
>did so uninvited, too forcefully and insidiously.  And it was an assault not 
>just on my emotions or feelings, thus your new definition is inadequate.  
>Sorry and welcome back.    
>
> 
>
>

[FairfieldLife] J gets another fact wrong and S apologizes to R

[Share Long]

Poor archives, still being selectively eschewed by Judy.  Correcting Judy:  I 
joined FFL in May 2012 and Robin rejoined in June 2012.  Aren't you all glad I 
straightened THAT out?!  Dear Robin, practicing just in case:  please forgive 
me for not joining FFL in the same month as you did thus rendering Judy a LIAR. 
 I hope you can understand.  Shalom and all the best always, Share
PS  May I take this opportunity to wish you Happy Birthday a few days early?  

[FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - were you trying to PR me?

[authfriend]

He's just upset that he wasn't at the top of my hit
list yesterday. I *told* him I might not get around
to him until Saturday, but he got all hurt anyway. I
guess he was hopin' against hope...

It's hard for him to internalize his loss of status
on FFL after so many years.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Man, there are very creepy things going on on this 
> > > > forum lately.
> > > 
> > > Your malicious intentions are at the heart of them.  
> > > You are a constant source of ill will and 
> > > misunderstanding here.
> > > 
> > > You are a troll and the intentions of this post are 
> > > unfriendly. 
> > 
> > Does anyone remember my use of the phrase "...when 
> > she Hits The Ground Hating again just after the clock 
> > ticks midnight Friday" a couple of days ago. I want
> > to thank Judy for proving me prescient.
> > 
> > Ten minutes after the Post Count thread appeared to
> > indicate a new "posting week," Judy began spewing 
> > hatred on this forum again, aimed it at her habitual
> > enemies. A little less than four hours later, she 
> > has made 11 posts that couldn't reek more of hatred
> > and malevolence if Satan himself had spewed them
> > forth. The woman couldn't be more insane -- and 
> > more predictable in her insanity -- if she tried.
> >
> As usual, Barry is speaking about himself only pretending it is about someone 
> else. As predictable as it is that Judy will post again is your cookie cutter 
> response that is so threadbare it is see through. Now why not address the 
> subject at hand instead of throwing out these meaningless, unfounded 
> generalities that show us nothing and prove nothing. Don't you have a walk to 
> take to get some coffee at some quaint bistro or something instead of 
> bothering us?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily bad news about the ego

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
>
> You used a forceful phrase that expressed how you felt.
> There's nothing wrong with that. Far worse has been said
> on this forum.

Such as?

While you're trying to come up with something, let's have
a look at the definition of this "forceful phrase" that
was posted by Xeno yesterday:

> 'Trashing is a particularly vicious form of character
> assassination which amounts to psychological rape. It
> is manipulative, dishonest, and excessive. It is
> occasionally disguised by the rhetoric of honest
> conflict, or covered up by denying that any disapproval
> exists at all. But it is not meant to resolve
> differences. It is done to disparage and destroy."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/342326

And now let's look at the remarks of Robin that Share
used this "forceful phrase" to describe:

"You must excuse my presumption here (because it
is very likely I am wrong) but I must tell you that in
this post I get to feel the most Share that is there
severed (perhaps not consciously:)) from her philosophy.
It just *seemed* to me that all you wrote here came out
of your experience unmediated by any final beliefs about
what is real. Like a beautiful accident of Share making
herself available beyond what would be possible were she
solidly, as she almost always is, behind her spiritual
orientation to people and reality (which, in the
weaponry and ordnance deployed by some of us more
irascible FFL posters, is sometimes--silently, mind
you--denigrated as being overly positive--and therefore
impotent:))."

The juxtaposition of these two quotes is something of a
litmus test, I think, of the degree of one's objectivity
vs. one's need to see oneself as a knight in shining armor
defending a damsel in distress.

Where do you stand, feste? Would you say the paragraph
from Robin's post is accurately described by the
paragraph from Xeno's post, such that the latter can be
legitimately characterized as "psychological rape"?

"Character assassination" with the intention to "disparage
and destroy"?

Take your time answering. As Barry would say, we'll
wait.

> As I am sure you are aware, this issue is being kept
> alive by one poster in particular, whose intentions
> toward you are wholly malevolent.

See, we have very different views on this, feste. I
think Share's "psychological rape" accusation was one
of the most malevolent charges ever made on FFL.
Especially given that it was made four weeks after
Robin had posted his remarks quoted above, when her
initial reaction at the time he made them had been one
of only mild annoyance, which she attributed to
grumpiness from eating too much sugar (and apologized
to Robin for).

(I'm not convinced, however, that the malevolence
toward Robin behind that four-weeks-after-the-fact
accusation was entirely Share's. She owns it now,
though.)

> Nothing you could say would appease this poster

Au contraire, Pierre. If Share were to retract and
apologize publicly for the "psychological rape"
accusation, I would be appeased and gratified and
would never mention the issue again.

>, so if I were you, I wouldn't even bother to try.

Don't worry, I seriously doubt she has the guts.



> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Emily I've heard that what happens is that the ego gains cosmic status.� 
> > Of course just knowing that can be a slippery slope for some egos ha ha.
> > As to The Other Matter:� I never knew the phrase emotional rape til I 
> > read your post last night.� I knew no official definitions when I made my 
> > accusation to Robin.� In a moment of clarity such as prolonged extreme 
> > upset can produce, the phrase psychologically raped came to me.� By that 
> > I meant that Robin attributed thoughts and feelings to me that I wasn't 
> > having and he did so uninvited, too forcefully and insidiously.� And it 
> > was an assault not just on my emotions or feelings, thus your new 
> > definition is inadequate.� Sorry and welcome back. ��
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] A feeling about the TMO

[Mike Dixon]

You would have to have an enormous amount of faith to devote your life to the 
TM movement. Very low pay, if any and no retirement. The TMO doesn't make 
contributions towards SS or any other federal benefit program so when you're 
too old to benefit them, what do you do? Hope they have some little closet for 
you to stay in, a bowl of rice to eat, perfect health and you're enlightened?

 


 From: Michael Jackson 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:30 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] A feeling about the TMO
  
   
 
This is something I posted on MUM Secrets in response to another post:


I agree with a lot of what Taylor says, but on the issue of staff not 
being paid, that is a blanket policy that I admit I willingly accepted 
when I was on staff cuz I wanted to be in the Dome, but it is not too 
good for the workers and especially for someone who spends years on faculty 
with no retirement etc. I admit I am about 
to make a blanket statement but the Movement seems to function from a 
"what can you do for us" attitude rather than what can we do for the 
people who support us. They seem to feel that teaching us to do TM is 
the only thing they needed to do and all else is given to them. If they 
had put as much time, effort, energy and thought to serving the needs of people 
in a concrete way through the years as they did to trying to get us to give 
them all our money and allegiance, I would still be with them.   
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: in which Judy changes her gasp mind about Xeno

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> dear FFL, on Tuesday April 23, 2013 Xeno was included in the Judy Approved 
> People List aka we'll never lie to you or try to mislead you.
> On Friday April 26, 2013 it seems that Xeno may have been booted off that 
> list.  Xeno, please don't cry.
> 
> Judy on Tuesday April 23, 2013 about Xeno:
> Bottom line, there are people on FFL you can trust, and those you can't. The 
> former include (but are not necessarily limited to) Alex, sparaig, 
> doctordumbass, Bhairitu, salyavin, laughinggull, Xeno, Ann, Emily, 
> raunchy, and me. Some of us may give you a hard time now and then, and 
> sometimes we make inadvertent mistakes, but we'll never lie to you or 
> try to mislead you.
> 
> Judy on Friday April 26, 2013 about Xeno:
> This is insupportable and unconscionable, Xeno. It's
> inexcusable for you to suggest that it describes anything
> Robin ever did to Share.
> 
> and 
> 
> What is the reason for Xeno's ferocious and utterly 
> unreasonable hostility toward Robin in this post?
> 
> and the best one of all IMHO:
> 
> Right. It's fine with Xeno for Barry to psychologically
> rape Robin just to keep his writing skills honed.
> 
> God, the hypocrisy and malice are monumental.

It's time to fuck off now Share.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily bad news about the ego

[feste37]

You used a forceful phrase that expressed how you felt. There's nothing wrong 
with that. Far worse has been said on this forum. As I am sure you are aware, 
this issue is being kept alive by one poster in particular, whose intentions 
toward you are wholly malevolent. Nothing you could say would appease this 
poster, so if I were you, I wouldn't even bother to try. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Emily I've heard that what happens is that the ego gains cosmic status.� Of 
> course just knowing that can be a slippery slope for some egos ha ha.
> As to The Other Matter:� I never knew the phrase emotional rape til I read 
> your post last night.� I knew no official definitions when I made my 
> accusation to Robin.� In a moment of clarity such as prolonged extreme 
> upset can produce, the phrase psychologically raped came to me.� By that I 
> meant that Robin attributed thoughts and feelings to me that I wasn't having 
> and he did so uninvited, too forcefully and insidiously.� And it was an 
> assault not just on my emotions or feelings, thus your new definition is 
> inadequate.� Sorry and welcome back. ��
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Quest For Consciousness

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "martin.quickman"  
wrote:
>
> From David Lynch, a super video ( about 25 min.s ) discussing our 
> ever-expanding Consciousness and our Quest for it - take time to enjoy ! 
> 
> http://lightkeepersblog.wordpress.com/
>

Now that is quite some positivity here.  Quite hopeful.  Thanks,
-Buck

[FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily bad news about the ego

[seventhray27]

So true Share.  How strange to introduce this notion of "emotional
rape".  I am sorry to say that it was far off the mark.  Of course the
term, "psychological rape", nailed it exactly.  Maybe Emily felt that
she needed to distinquish herself in someway, by hilighting some new
facet to an already overwrought discussion.

It was a good attempt, but unfortunately not all attempts work.

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



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote:
>
> Emily I've heard that what happens is that the ego gains cosmic
status.  Of course just knowing that can be a slippery slope for some
egos ha ha.
> As to The Other Matter:  I never knew the phrase emotional rape til I
read your post last night.  I knew no official definitions when I made
my accusation to Robin.  In a moment of clarity such as prolonged
extreme upset can produce, the phrase psychologically raped came to me. 
By that I meant that Robin attributed thoughts and feelings to me that I
wasn't having and he did so uninvited, too forcefully and insidiously. 
And it was an assault not just on my emotions or feelings, thus your new
definition is inadequate.  Sorry and welcome back.
>

[FairfieldLife] to Emily bad news about the ego

[Share Long]

Emily I've heard that what happens is that the ego gains cosmic status.  Of 
course just knowing that can be a slippery slope for some egos ha ha.
As to The Other Matter:  I never knew the phrase emotional rape til I read your 
post last night.  I knew no official definitions when I made my accusation to 
Robin.  In a moment of clarity such as prolonged extreme upset can produce, the 
phrase psychologically raped came to me.  By that I meant that Robin attributed 
thoughts and feelings to me that I wasn't having and he did so uninvited, too 
forcefully and insidiously.  And it was an assault not just on my emotions or 
feelings, thus your new definition is inadequate.  Sorry and welcome back.    

[FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - were you trying to PR me?

[seventhray27]

like I said, "B" for boring.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote:
>
> Honesty is good. But I don't believe in the notions of karma and
> reincarnation, unless karma meant actions we perform. But even then -
I
> think being in service of truth and being aligned with the existence's
will
> is what works for me - even if that means I am rude and insulting, I
have
> an extremely low tolerance for bullshit, purveyors of bullshit who
think
> they can peddle their bullshit unchallenged. My challenge this
lifetime has
> been to properly channel this anger, it would overwhelm me with
confusion,
> burden, guilt earlier but now I feed off it. I can now precisely
target
> these peddlers of bullshit without letting my anger overwhelm me.
>
> Anyway I digress - I don't think you or anyone else will reincarnate -
> animal or not. I am actually in line with Christianity here - I'm too
> narcissistic, Ravi has only been created once and will exist for the
rest
> of the eternity, I will not accept anything else unless I can come
back as
> a better me again and I will fight for it tooth and nail :-)
>
> But of course there is no proof of reincarnation of individuals,
unless
> reincarnation meant manifestations of consciousness, as in
consciouness
> incarnates again and again which then again implies there will be only
one
> Ravi and Emily - all this is subject to modification though - who
fucking
> knows.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@...wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I try to be honest Ravi. It's hard here on FFL, but I have my
afterlife
> > to consider and I take my karma seriously. I am getting older. I
don't
> > want to be reincarnated as a rat. A cat would be O.K. A dog would be
> > fine, with a friendly owner who exercised me and fed me well (I mean
how
> > much closer to God might I get?)
> >
> > --
> > *From:* Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@...
> > *To:* "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > *Sent:* Friday, April 26, 2013 10:57 PM
> >
> > *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - were you trying to PR
me?
> >
> >
> > Emily, Emily, Emily - duh - yes, of course you did - it was thumbs
up from
> > you, I just reread your post. Very nice - no need for
bait-and-switch
> > impending apologies as tools for negotiation and all kinds of phony
> > behavior, no need for the other to even ask for it, no need to
dismiss
> > other person's feeling or deny that it even exists.
> >
> > Wow, good - thank you.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@...wrote:
> >
> > **
> >
> > Ravi, Ravi, Ravi - I already did. Did you not read my post. Maybe I
> > wasn't clear enough. I could try again, if you think it would be
helpful.
> > But, we should see if Curtis takes what I said at face value, which
is
> > exactly the way it was written and intended for him. I always feel a
pang
> > of guilt if I have unintentionally, through my own
misinterpretation,
> > offended someone.
> >
> > --
> > *From:* Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@...
> > *To:* "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > *Sent:* Friday, April 26, 2013 10:44 PM
> >
> > *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - were you trying to PR
me?
> >
> >
> > Yaay - of course you will, how stupid of me to not think of that !!!
Let's
> > work as a team - Ravi and Emily - The Apologizers
> >
> > So first order of business - How about Curtis - you think we should
> > apologize? For what? I say thumbs down.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@...wrote:
> >
> > **
> >
> > Well, I will be in charge of apologizing to the men, most anyway,
how
> > about that?
> >
> > --
> > *From:* Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@...
> > *To:* "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > *Sent:* Friday, April 26, 2013 10:34 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - were you trying to PR
me?
> >
> >
> > "Ravi, I think you should be in charge of all apologies on this
forum. "
> >
> > I don't apologize to men, most anyway - sorry. But yes - I do bend
over
> > backwards to apologize to women, well most anyway.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@...wrote:
> >
> > **
> >
> > Curtis, I actually wouldn't have interpreted it this way. Wouldn't
have
> > even occurred to me, honestly. *You* are the one who asked me to pay
> > "particular attention" to that verse and then put forth the "gang
rape"
> > description yourself as to how *you* had interpreted it, prior to
showing
> > it to your girlfriend who had made the point that the song could
have been
> > talking about "consensual" activities in where the woman was
enjoying be
> > attended to "down in the pines" (and I paraphrase), which is a
humorous and
> > more pleasant way to interpret it, I must agree.
> >
> > Carol also thought it was abo

[FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - were you trying to PR me?

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote:
>
> "Ravi, I think you should be in charge of all apologies on this forum.
"
>
> I don't apologize to men, most anyway - sorry. But yes - I do bend
over
> backwards to apologize to women, well most anyway.


You crack me up Ravi.  You fashion yourself as such a champion  of women
in the virtual world.  Too bad it played out so badly in the 3D world. 
But of course, as you so often say, "the fault was all on my ex"


> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Curtis, I actually wouldn't have interpreted it this way. Wouldn't
have
> > even occurred to me, honestly. *You* are the one who asked me to pay
> > "particular attention" to that verse and then put forth the "gang
rape"
> > description yourself as to how *you* had interpreted it, prior to
showing
> > it to your girlfriend who had made the point that the song could
have been
> > talking about "consensual" activities in where the woman was
enjoying be
> > attended to "down in the pines" (and I paraphrase), which is a
humorous and
> > more pleasant way to interpret it, I must agree.
> >
> > Carol also thought it was about gang rape and commented to that
affect.
> >
> > I am glad to hear that there were and have never been any hidden
messages
> > and meanings in what you've ever communicated to me. I like to be
> > understood as well and don't appreciate it when others' assume
incorrectly
> > what I am posting about without asking me. This is why I asked you -
no
> > harm meant, as I said in the rest of it that was embedded in my post
back
> > to Xeno. I hadn't thought much about it until now - "gang rape"
reminded
> > me of psychological rape - only because they both use the word rape
and
> > then I was like, wait...should I have been offended? I was just
riffin' -
> > don't take me too seriously Curtis. Your first appraisal of my
tendency to
> > amuse myself on this forum is not too far from the truth.
> >
> > But, do you know the history behind the song? I like the song, as I
do
> > appreciate and enjoy many styles of music. It was an interesting
song and
> > very poetic. You note below that the lyric was a misinterpretation -
by
> > you?
> >
> > Ravi, I think you should be in charge of all apologies on this
forum.
> >
> > --
> > *From:* curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@...
> > *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > *Sent:* Friday, April 26, 2013 9:25 PM
> > *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: To Curtis - were you trying to PR me?
> >
> >
> > Sensitive Ravi to the rescue. Right, got it.
> >
> > It was not a gang rape lyric, that was a misinterpretation.
> >
> > But that distinction will not interest you because you are a troll
and
> > your posting intentions are unfriendly.
> >
> > You think you are "getting" a person Judy does not like and winning
her
> > approval, but instead you are revealing yourself and your shallow
agenda.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I think a lot of men have incredible difficulty expressing empathy
but
> > this
> > > one seems very cold-hearted and dismissive, as if the person
asking these
> > > questions had no right to these feelings and/or was irrational for
even
> > > trying to communicate that, viz "I have no idea why you write any
of
> > this"
> > > - I wonder if this is narcissism, disassociation and/or
psychopathy?
> > >
> > > Anyway here's one way I would respond assuming I was innocent.
> > >
> > > "Dear Emily - I am so sorry to hear that you were disturbed by the
gang
> > > rape lyrics. Looking back it was probably not a good idea to post
it or I
> > > should have cautioned you that the lyrics had references to gang
rape -
> > in
> > > this day and age one should always be aware that there could be
some who
> > > would get affected by that, especially victims and family members
of
> > > victims harmed by sexual violence. But rest assured Emily I had no
> > > intentions to PR you, my intentions was just to share some music
with a
> > > fellow music-lover and in retrospect I should have known that some
people
> > > may have found it offensive. I hope you are feeling better."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 8:51 PM, authfriend authfriend@ wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, as much as Curtis asserts that his goal is "to be
> > > > understood by other people here," it doesn't seem that
> > > > he is willing to respond to the question Emily asked
> > > > him: Why did he make a point of calling her attention
> > > > to a verse about gang rape? Instead he just wipes out
> > > > her context as if it had never existed.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously she found it disturbing. Why wouldn't he
> > > > respond--unless that's what he wanted, for her to be
> > > > disturbed?
> > > >
> > > > Man, there are very creepy things going on on this
> > > > forum lately.
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife

[FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and Barry

[seventhray27]

I don't know Emily, but "frustration", I would say was a good
description of what came through on your posts yesterday. But that is
understandable.  Returning from time spent for rest and relaxation can
often be difficult, so I am understanding.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote:
>
> Do you think he has some inherent frustration growing about being
Share's "knight in shining armor?"
>
> Wait, is that a kind and sensitive thing to say? Â I hope so. Â
(Alex, I have applied to volunteer as Saint FFL - I might need that
application back...)
>
>
>
> >
> > From: authfriend authfriend@...
> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 9:05 PM
> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Responses to DrD, Stevie-poo, Share, and
Barry
> >
> >
> >
> >Â
> >The strange thing is, Steve *used* to be a relatively
> >nice fella, who would occasionally make at least a quasi-
> >intelligent post, sometimes even a funny one. He was
> >friendly and cheery, rarely attacked anybody, wasn't at
> >all obnoxious. And he was his own person, not a toady.
> >
> >Something has happened or is happening to him, something
> >distinctly ungood.
> >
> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" awoelflebater@ wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Judy, I get it that subtle distinctions are not your strong
point. So,
> >> > I'm just going to let you reflect on it, and then maybe it'll
come to
> >> > you.
> >> >
> >> > Get back to me if you get some inspiration. I'll be rooting for
you.
> >> > (-:
> >>
> >> Dear Steve, I implore you to stop. Stop now. Even though it's too
late, you need to get a grip. This is starting to become embarrassing.
You are no longer anyone's champion, you are just some guy acting
stupid. I would say this even if it was me you thought you were
defending.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"
steve.sundur@
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > You don't die from psychological rape. You die from being
murdered.
> >> > > > There is a difference. Sorry about that.
> >> > >
> >> > > My *God*, you are stupid.
> >> > >
> >> > > Let's say you got mugged.
> >> > >
> >> > > A person doesn't get mugged all by themselves. There has
> >> > > to be a person who commits the mugging.
> >> > >
> >> > > Is there a subtle difference between saying a person
> >> > > was mugged and calling the person who mugged him a
> >> > > mugger?
> >> > >
> >> > > (Thinking time required to adjust for Stevie's stupidity:
> >> > > about 3 seconds.)
> >> > >
> >> > > Is this some ego-deflating spiritual practice our Stevie
> >> > > has undertaken, to repeatedly come up with laughably
> >> > > idiotic remarks to make himself look bad?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape

[seventhray27]

Good to know Emily.  Always useful to get the definitive word on
something.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote:
>
> Xeno puts out some great posts. Â I love reading most of them. Â
This one wasn't based on any sort of logic that made any sense at all.
 Even I, a non-meditating, unenlightened, sometimes slow on the
uptake, kinda gal realized this. Â
>
>
>
> >
> > From: seventhray27 steve.sundur@...
> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 8:01 PM
> >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Psychological Rape
> >
> >
> >
> >Â
> >Sheesh, it really got to you didn't it Ravi. We really haven't seen
you this discombobulated for some time. Your dull and rusty and butter
knife is no match for Xeno's logic. Maybe it's time to concede to a
higher power.
> >
> >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote:
> >>
> >> "God, the hypocrisy and malice are monumental."
> >>
> >> Thank you - my feelings exactly. What causes our platitude puking
wannabe Guru Xeno so much discomfort or why do his pseudo-Eastern
concepts of ego, delusion, pure consciousness break down here?
> >>
> >> What's obvious is his hypocrisy, maliciousness and his perverse
application of his mental constructs to suit his agenda.
> >>
> >> Considering the fact these very same concepts explain away all the
dishonesty, deception of the likes of Share, Curtis and pure paranoid,
delusional, malicious rants of Barry. A writer honing his skills? OMG
what retarded crap from Xeno.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 26, 2013, at 5:27 PM, "authfriend" authfriend@ wrote:
> >>
> >> > God, the hypocrisy and malice are monumental.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] in which Judy changes her gasp mind about Xeno

[Share Long]

dear FFL, on Tuesday April 23, 2013 Xeno was included in the Judy Approved 
People List aka we'll never lie to you or try to mislead you.
On Friday April 26, 2013 it seems that Xeno may have been booted off that list. 
 Xeno, please don't cry.

Judy on Tuesday April 23, 2013 about Xeno:
Bottom line, there are people on FFL you can trust, and those you can't. The 
former include (but are not necessarily limited to) Alex, sparaig, 
doctordumbass, Bhairitu, salyavin, laughinggull, Xeno, Ann, Emily, 
raunchy, and me. Some of us may give you a hard time now and then, and 
sometimes we make inadvertent mistakes, but we'll never lie to you or 
try to mislead you.

Judy on Friday April 26, 2013 about Xeno:
This is insupportable and unconscionable, Xeno. It's
inexcusable for you to suggest that it describes anything
Robin ever did to Share.

and 

What is the reason for Xeno's ferocious and utterly 
unreasonable hostility toward Robin in this post?

and the best one of all IMHO:

Right. It's fine with Xeno for Barry to psychologically
rape Robin just to keep his writing skills honed.

God, the hypocrisy and malice are monumental.

[FairfieldLife] Lie, big lie, statistics!?

[card]

http://wmpoweruser.com/nokias-windows-phones-topping-customer-satisfaction-charts-in-us/

WTF?!

[FairfieldLife] A feeling about the TMO

[Michael Jackson]

This is something I posted on MUM Secrets in response to another post:


I agree with a lot of what Taylor says, but on the issue of staff not 
being paid, that is a blanket policy that I admit I willingly accepted 
when I was on staff cuz I wanted to be in the Dome, but it is not too 
good for the workers and especially for someone who spends years on faculty 
with no retirement etc. I admit I am about 
to make a blanket statement but the Movement seems to function from a 
"what can you do for us" attitude rather than what can we do for the 
people who support us. They seem to feel that teaching us to do TM is 
the only thing they needed to do and all else is given to them. If they 
had put as much time, effort, energy and thought to serving the needs of people 
in a concrete way through the years as they did to trying to get us to give 
them all our money and allegiance, I would still be with them.