[FairfieldLife] Re: Gee, I was born Gay!
But what do people do in previous lives to be so narrow minded in this one? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I don't think so- Actually homosexuality has been explained thousands of years ago by the Eastern doctrine of Karma and Reincarnation. We are all the products of decisions we've made in previous lives; good, bad or indifferent! To think we just all of a sudden are born here like chickens hatched from eggs is silly to say the least. Yes, silly to say we are just born here, doesn't seem like that at all We all have pasts and our present circumstances are the results of decisions made in the past, yes, even homosexuality. So you see, we are all responsible for who and what we are!! Born with the propensity to be Gay? maybe, but due to your own choices in past lives. God or nature didn't make you Gay, that was YOUR choice! or so it says in Eastern Philosophy. Do you ever wonder why other people's sexuality bothers you so much?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gee, I was born Gay!
WGM best stay out of the Scorpion Nation, then! Once again the scorpions show themselves to be vile, coarse and of low moral value (if you're opposed to gay stuff or scorpions in general). Reckon the scorpion gays will glass each other at their wedding receptions? Just askin'. LONDON -- Marriage-minded gays and lesbians can begin tying the knot in Britain on Saturday, becoming the latest same-sex couples in Europe and beyond to have the right to do so and fulfilling a dream made possible by a Conservative-led government. A handful of town halls across the country prepared to open at the stroke of midnight to allow nuptials that jubilant supporters called long overdue and opponents deplored as an attack on traditional values. http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-british-same-sex-marriage-20140328,0,4919802.story#ixzz2xLdl73SF On Sat, 3/29/14, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gee, I was born Gay! To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, March 29, 2014, 7:25 AM But what do people do in previous lives to be so narrow minded in this one? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I don't think so-Actually homosexuality has been explained thousands of years ago by the Eastern doctrine of Karma and Reincarnation. We are all the products of decisions we've made in previous lives; good, bad or indifferent! To think we just all of a sudden are born here like chickens hatched from eggs is silly to say the least. Yes, silly to say we are just born here, doesn't seem like that at all We all have pasts and our present circumstances are the results of decisions made in the past, yes, even homosexuality. So you see, we are all responsible for who and what we are!! Born with the propensity to be Gay? maybe, but due to your own choices in past lives. God or nature didn't make you Gay, that was YOUR choice! or so it says in Eastern Philosophy. Do you ever wonder why other people's sexuality bothers you so much?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gee, I was born Gay!
Indeed. I mean, what could they have been up to in that life that made them such soreasses in this life. Oh. Never mind. :-) From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 8:25 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gee, I was born Gay! But what do people do in previous lives to be so narrow minded in this one? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : I don't think so- Actually homosexuality has been explained thousands of years ago by the Eastern doctrine of Karma and Reincarnation. We are all the products of decisions we've made in previous lives; good, bad or indifferent! To think we just all of a sudden are born here like chickens hatched from eggs is silly to say the least. Yes, silly to say we are just born here, doesn't seem like that at all We all have pasts and our present circumstances are the results of decisions made in the past, yes, even homosexuality. So you see, we are all responsible for who and what we are!! Born with the propensity to be Gay? maybe, but due to your own choices in past lives. God or nature didn't make you Gay, that was YOUR choice! or so it says in Eastern Philosophy. Do you ever wonder why other people's sexuality bothers you so much?
Re: [FairfieldLife] What We Did Today
Yep, Ann if you read down a few messages, you'll see that's what I already told Emily. On Friday, March 28, 2014 11:08 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Well Emily, Ann was making assumptions about me and I was giving her feedback about her assumptions about me... You told me to go figure so I was go figuring. On Friday, March 28, 2014 12:40 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: I understand what you are saying Share, but you still interpreted her figuring as right and wrong. Are you experiencing cognitive dissonance right now - in the sense that your behavior is not in line with your beliefs? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : But Emily I was replying to what Ann wrote which was all about figuring... On Friday, March 28, 2014 11:59 AM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: But Share, we are talking about what you wrote, not what Ann wrote. You are slipping into your shadow side again. :) Stand up Sweetie...you wrote it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] What We Did Today
Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. On Friday, March 28, 2014 10:57 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe? Maybe you use them indirectly as both Ann and I have Apple products that we use to post here and you are using my post to reply to. I'm not judging the appropriateness of your choice of right and wrong, I'm just reminding you that, based on what you wrote, you *do* reduce things to right and wrong, thus invalidating or rendering inconsistent your statement that you don't think like that. My answer to your answer is I don't know. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : So Emily, when Ann wrote about me you do not use Apple computers what do you think would have been an appropriate answer?! On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:28 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ok, if you say so. (RIGHT) I figure you are not very savvy technically (RIGHT) and that you do not use Apple computers.(RIGHT) I figure you did not know Apple Stores existed (RIGHT) nor did you realize how cool they are, all simplistic design, glass and that they call their computer experts geniuses. (RIGHT) I figure you figure that getting out of FF twice a year amounts to some sort of cultural pinnacle (WRONG) and I figure you took exception to me making fun of the fact you don't know about Apple Stores.(WRONG) Is that enough figuring for one day do you think? (DON'T KNOW) Well Share, you indicated 5 rights, 2 wrongs, and 1 don't know. it appears that you *do* look at at least some things in a right and wrong kind of a way. Are you *sure* you know enough to use those terms, even as you apply them to you? Very black and white thinking, imho. I am surprised that you didn't know that Apple stores even existed! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Well Emily, Ann was making assumptions about me and I was giving her feedback about her assumptions about me... On Friday, March 28, 2014 12:40 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: I understand what you are saying Share, but you still interpreted her figuring as right and wrong. Are you experiencing cognitive dissonance right now - in the sense that your behavior is not in line with your beliefs? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : But Emily I was replying to what Ann wrote which was all about figuring... On Friday, March 28, 2014 11:59 AM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: But Share, we are talking about what you wrote, not what Ann wrote. You are
Re: [FairfieldLife] What We Did Today
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Yep, Ann if you read down a few messages, you'll see that's what I already told Emily. I just wanted you to hear it from the horse's mouth. That way we'd all be sure what was going on around here. On Friday, March 28, 2014 11:08 PM, awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Well Emily, Ann was making assumptions about me and I was giving her feedback about her assumptions about me... You told me to go figure so I was go figuring. On Friday, March 28, 2014 12:40 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: I understand what you are saying Share, but you still interpreted her figuring as right and wrong. Are you experiencing cognitive dissonance right now - in the sense that your behavior is not in line with your beliefs? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : But Emily I was replying to what Ann wrote which was all about figuring... On Friday, March 28, 2014 11:59 AM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: But Share, we are talking about what you wrote, not what Ann wrote. You are slipping into your shadow side again. :) Stand up Sweetie...you wrote it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] What We Did Today
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. Sometimes it would be interesting and much more fulfilling for you to say why you feel the way you do about something or define what it is about a viewpoint or opinion that you agree or don't agree with - it enriches a conversation. Otherwise you come off as simplistic and dismissive. For example, my response to your paragraph above would be this if I was answering as you just did: I didn't say you didn't think it was an interesting idea. That isn't saying you rejected it. What you responded to my post was not what I meant. And I don't agree with you. All that ends up being is a kind of negation without explanation or interesting development of the conversation. When this happens it becomes an endlessly-looping dead end quite quickly. On Friday, March 28, 2014 10:57 PM, awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe? Maybe you use them indirectly as both Ann and I have Apple products that we use to post here and you are using my post to reply to. I'm not judging the appropriateness of your choice of right and wrong, I'm just reminding you that, based on what you wrote, you *do* reduce things to right and wrong, thus invalidating or rendering inconsistent your statement that you don't think like that. My answer to your answer is I don't know. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : So Emily, when Ann wrote about me you do not use Apple computers what do you think would have been an appropriate answer?! On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:28 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ok, if you say so. (RIGHT) I figure you are not very savvy technically (RIGHT) and that you do not use Apple computers.(RIGHT) I figure you did not know Apple Stores existed (RIGHT) nor did you realize how cool they are, all simplistic design, glass and that they call their computer experts geniuses. (RIGHT) I figure you figure that getting out of FF twice a year amounts to some sort of cultural pinnacle (WRONG) and I figure you took exception to me making fun of the fact you don't know about Apple Stores.(WRONG) Is that enough figuring for one day do you think? (DON'T KNOW) Well Share, you indicated 5 rights, 2 wrongs, and 1 don't know. it appears that you *do* look at at least some things in a right and wrong kind of a way. Are you *sure* you know enough to use those terms, even as you apply them to you? Very black and white thinking, imho. I am
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
On 3/28/2014 7:27 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: The point I was making to you is that it is false to continue to state that Barry was the *only* person to have the experience of Rama levitating. According to Barry, the levitation was not REAL- it was just a Rama SIDDHI thing. A magician can do a lot when he is up on a stage in a dark lecture hall with assistants all around. It's not complicated. H.P Blavatsky apparently used to do these kinds of parlor tricks all the time. Go figure. There have been numerous reports of mass hysteria in many cult groups, resulting in cases of group think in which people all get stoned on psychedelics in a public park and proclaim they had just seen the Holy Ghost. This happened one time on Hippie Hill in Golden Gate Park in SF back in 1968. The experience was real, but it was just an illusion, since everyone knows that the Holy Ghost doesn't exist, according to Barry. Go figure. Have you ever seen a performance by David Blaine the American magician, illusionist and endurance artist?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count Sat 29-Mar-14 00:15:06 UTC
On 3/28/2014 11:02 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: Whew, just under the non-existent wire. Why am I carrying all the heavy weight around here? I think I will go to a mall today and snap a photo. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ffl.postcount@... wrote : Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): 03/22/14 00:00:00 End Date (UTC): 03/29/14 00:00:00 1003 messages as of (UTC) 03/28/14 23:49:55 169 Richard J. Williams 104 authfriend 100 Share Long 67 steve.sundur 65 TurquoiseBee 63 Michael Jackson 54 salyavin808 49 awoelflebater 40 LEnglish5 40 Bhairitu 37 doctordumbass 35 nablusoss1008 29 dhamiltony2k5 27 emilymaenot 26 anartaxius 19 jr_esq 19 Pundit Sir 18 Mike Dixon 6 Rick Archer 5 cardemaister 4 turquoiseb 4 merudanda 4 emptybill 4 Dick Mays 3 j_alexander_stanley 2 yifuxero 2 geezerfreak 2 feste37 2 Duveyoung 1 wgm4u 1 ultrarishi 1 s3raphita 1 Free N. Flourishing Posters: 33 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
Re: [FairfieldLife] What We Did Today
On 3/28/2014 4:07 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Translation: If you think I'm going to acknowledge being inconsistent right here in front of God and everybody, you've got another think coming. What a nerve! So, have you ever been to an Apple Store? Emily, that's a very interesting perspective.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gee, I was born Gay!
On 3/29/2014 5:57 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: WGM best stay out of the Scorpion Nation, then! Once again the scorpions show themselves to be vile, coarse and of low moral value (if you're opposed to gay stuff or scorpions in general). Reckon the scorpion gays will glass each other at their wedding receptions? Just askin'. You got to work really early today!
Re: [FairfieldLife] What We Did Today
On 3/29/2014 8:29 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Yep, Ann if you read down a few messages, you'll see that's what I already told Emily. I just wanted you to hear it from the horse's mouth. That way we'd all be sure what was going on around here. It looks like I'm the only informant that has been to an Apple Store, but let's make sure: Has anyone out there ever been to an Apple Store in a mall?
Re: [FairfieldLife] What We Did Today
On 3/29/2014 8:37 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: When this happens it becomes an endlessly-looping dead end quite quickly. Has anyone out there ever used a Mac Pro, except Lawson? I used to use a G4 when I was working at the community college. We used Adobe software like PhotoShop, InDesign and Premier for video editing. Rita wants to get Final Cut Pro. RFC.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is TM an Effortless Practice?
Agreed! Climbing onto the diving board, walking out to the end, and leaning forward, all involve effort, although each step requires less effort. What is effortless, is once the proper angle is achieved, gravity does the rest which is the effortless part. Like wise with TM, sitting down, closing the eyes, settling into the silence, maybe even introducing the mantra, all require some effort although each step is requiring less but once the set-up takes place, transcending is effortless. Forgetting the mantra and ending up in the transcendence required absolutely no effort. On Friday, March 28, 2014 4:44 PM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/28/2014 3:48 PM, anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: With regard to effortlessness, exactly what would be regarded as 'effortless'? On a scale of one to ten, with one being effortless, and ten being maximum effort, I'd say that doing TM is about a 1.1, and sixth level calculus about a 9.9. And, I don't recall anyone ever complaining about basic TM being difficult. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is TM an Effortless Practice?
Yes clearly, and requires some spiritual discipline to actually sit up and do it. Some people could expend a little more effort to do this and be a little more regular in their practice too. The science clearly says that would be helpful to themselves and everyone else around them. Helpful, even to the world, -Buck mdixon.6569 writes: Agreed! Climbing onto the diving board, walking out to the end, and leaning forward, all involve effort, although each step requires less effort. What is effortless, is once the proper angle is achieved, gravity does the rest which is the effortless part. Like wise with TM, sitting down, closing the eyes, settling into the silence, maybe even introducing the mantra, all require some effort although each step is requiring less but once the set-up takes place, transcending is effortless. Forgetting the mantra and ending up in the transcendence required absolutely no effort. punditster observes: On a scale of one to ten, with one being effortless, and ten being maximum effort, I'd say that doing TM is about a 1.1, and sixth level calculus about a 9.9. And, I don't recall anyone ever complaining about basic TM being difficult. Go figure. .
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Richard, is your point here that you believe Rama was a magician? O.K. If this brings you closure than go with it. Is this relevant to anything or anybody? I made my point and I'm letting it go. Try to do the same. You might feel better. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/28/2014 7:27 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: The point I was making to you is that it is false to continue to state that Barry was the *only* person to have the experience of Rama levitating. According to Barry, the levitation was not REAL- it was just a Rama SIDDHI thing. A magician can do a lot when he is up on a stage in a dark lecture hall with assistants all around. It's not complicated. H.P Blavatsky apparently used to do these kinds of parlor tricks all the time. Go figure. There have been numerous reports of mass hysteria in many cult groups, resulting in cases of group think in which people all get stoned on psychedelics in a public park and proclaim they had just seen the Holy Ghost. This happened one time on Hippie Hill in Golden Gate Park in SF back in 1968. The experience was real, but it was just an illusion, since everyone knows that the Holy Ghost doesn't exist, according to Barry. Go figure. Have you ever seen a performance by David Blaine the American magician, illusionist and endurance artist?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count Sat 29-Mar-14 00:15:06 UTC
So, how many of these 33 posters publishing on FFL are currently regular practitioners of a transcending meditation? Just wondering, -Buck Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): 03/22/14 00:00:00 End Date (UTC): 03/29/14 00:00:00 1003 messages as of (UTC) 03/28/14 23:49:55 169 Richard J. Williams 104 authfriend 100 Share Long 67 steve.sundur 65 TurquoiseBee 63 Michael Jackson 54 salyavin808 49 awoelflebater 40 LEnglish5 40 Bhairitu 37 doctordumbass 35 nablusoss1008 29 dhamiltony2k5 27 emilymaenot 26 anartaxius 19 jr_esq 19 Pundit Sir 18 Mike Dixon 6 Rick Archer 5 cardemaister 4 turquoiseb 4 merudanda 4 emptybill 4 Dick Mays 3 j_alexander_stanley 2 yifuxero 2 geezerfreak 2 feste37 2 Duveyoung 1 wgm4u 1 ultrarishi 1 s3raphita 1 Free N. Flourishing Posters: 33 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 http://www.worldtimezone.com .
Re: [FairfieldLife] What We Did Today
As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap Keep tapping Share, keep tapping. May it bring you the effect and change you desire. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. On Friday, March 28, 2014 10:57 PM, awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe? Maybe you use them indirectly as both Ann and I have Apple products that we use to post here and you are using my post to reply to. I'm not judging the appropriateness of your choice of right and wrong, I'm just reminding you that, based on what you wrote, you *do* reduce things to right and wrong, thus invalidating or rendering inconsistent your statement that you don't think like that. My answer to your answer is I don't know. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : So Emily, when Ann wrote about me you do not use Apple computers what do you think would have been an appropriate answer?! On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:28 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ok, if you say so. (RIGHT) I figure you are not very savvy technically (RIGHT) and that you do not use Apple computers.(RIGHT) I figure you did not know Apple Stores existed (RIGHT) nor did you realize how cool they are, all simplistic design, glass and that they call their computer experts geniuses. (RIGHT) I figure you figure that getting out of FF twice a year amounts to some sort of cultural pinnacle (WRONG) and I figure you took exception to me making fun of the fact you don't know about Apple Stores.(WRONG) Is that enough figuring for one day do you think? (DON'T KNOW) Well Share, you indicated 5 rights, 2 wrongs, and 1 don't know. it appears that you *do* look at at least some things in a right and wrong kind of a way. Are you *sure* you know enough to use those terms, even as you apply them to you? Very black and white thinking, imho. I am surprised that you didn't know that Apple stores even existed! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Well Emily, Ann was making assumptions about me and I was giving her feedback about her assumptions about me... On Friday, March 28, 2014 12:40 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: I understand what you are saying Share, but you still interpreted her figuring as right and wrong. Are you experiencing cognitive dissonance right now - in the sense that your behavior is not in line with your beliefs? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : But Emily
Re: [FairfieldLife] What We Did Today
Thanks, Emily and same for you regarding your meditation and any healing modalities you use. On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:00 AM, emilymae...@yahoo.com emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap Keep tapping Share, keep tapping. May it bring you the effect and change you desire. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. On Friday, March 28, 2014 10:57 PM, awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe? Maybe you use them indirectly as both Ann and I have Apple products that we use to post here and you are using my post to reply to. I'm not judging the appropriateness of your choice of right and wrong, I'm just reminding you that, based on what you wrote, you *do* reduce things to right and wrong, thus invalidating or rendering inconsistent your statement that you don't think like that. My answer to your answer is I don't know. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : So Emily, when Ann wrote about me you do not use Apple computers what do you think would have been an appropriate answer?! On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:28 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ok, if you say so. (RIGHT) I figure you are not very savvy technically (RIGHT) and that you do not use Apple computers.(RIGHT) I figure you did not know Apple Stores existed (RIGHT) nor did you realize how cool they are, all simplistic design, glass and that they call their computer experts geniuses. (RIGHT) I figure you figure that getting out of FF twice a year amounts to some sort of cultural pinnacle (WRONG) and I figure you took exception to me making fun of the fact you don't know about Apple Stores.(WRONG) Is that enough figuring for one day do you think? (DON'T KNOW) Well Share, you indicated 5 rights, 2 wrongs, and 1 don't know. it appears that you *do* look at at least some things in a right and wrong kind of a way. Are you *sure* you know enough to use those terms, even as you apply them to you? Very black and white thinking, imho. I am surprised that you didn't know that Apple stores even existed! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Well Emily, Ann was making assumptions about me and I was giving her feedback about her assumptions about me... On Friday, March 28, 2014 12:40 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: I understand what you are saying Share, but you still interpreted her figuring as right and wrong. Are you experiencing cognitive
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count Sat 29-Mar-14 00:15:06 UTC
Just come back to Self. On Saturday, March 29, 2014 7:58 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: So, how many of these 33 posters publishing on FFL are currently regular practitioners of a transcending meditation? Just wondering, -Buck Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): 03/22/14 00:00:00 End Date (UTC): 03/29/14 00:00:00 1003 messages as of (UTC) 03/28/14 23:49:55 169 Richard J. Williams 104 authfriend 100 Share Long 67 steve.sundur 65 TurquoiseBee 63 Michael Jackson 54 salyavin808 49 awoelflebater 40 LEnglish5 40 Bhairitu 37 doctordumbass 35 nablusoss1008 29 dhamiltony2k5 27 emilymaenot 26 anartaxius 19 jr_esq 19 Pundit Sir 18 Mike Dixon 6 Rick Archer 5 cardemaister 4 turquoiseb 4 merudanda 4 emptybill 4 Dick Mays 3 j_alexander_stanley 2 yifuxero 2 geezerfreak 2 feste37 2 Duveyoung 1 wgm4u 1 ultrarishi 1 s3raphita 1 Free N. Flourishing Posters: 33 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: http://www.worldtimezone.com/ .
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
As you know, Richard--because you quoted Barry's post saying so--according to Barry, he saw Lenz levitate in many different situations, not just lecture halls or places where he might have had help staging an illusion. It's fine to make Barry look foolish by questioning what it was that Barry saw or imagined he saw, but when you quote him and then lie about what he said, it makes you look like a worse fool than he is. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/28/2014 7:27 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: The point I was making to you is that it is false to continue to state that Barry was the *only* person to have the experience of Rama levitating. According to Barry, the levitation was not REAL- it was just a Rama SIDDHI thing. A magician can do a lot when he is up on a stage in a dark lecture hall with assistants all around. It's not complicated. H.P Blavatsky apparently used to do these kinds of parlor tricks all the time. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Is TM an Effortless Practice?
What is effort? If I hear a sound and sit up from sleep, did I apply mental effort to sit up or was it a spontaneous reaction? If I close my eyes after sitting up and my mantra spontaneously flits through my mind and I fail to open my eyes again for 10-60 minutes, even though I'm sure I didn't fall asleep because my head remained upright, did I meditate? Did that meditation period involve effort? L ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mdixon.6569@... wrote : Agreed! Climbing onto the diving board, walking out to the end, and leaning forward, all involve effort, although each step requires less effort. What is effortless, is once the proper angle is achieved, gravity does the rest which is the effortless part. Like wise with TM, sitting down, closing the eyes, settling into the silence, maybe even introducing the mantra, all require some effort although each step is requiring less but once the set-up takes place, transcending is effortless. Forgetting the mantra and ending up in the transcendence required absolutely no effort. On Friday, March 28, 2014 4:44 PM, Richard J. Williams punditster@... wrote: On 3/28/2014 3:48 PM, anartaxius@... wrote: With regard to effortlessness, exactly what would be regarded as 'effortless'? On a scale of one to ten, with one being effortless, and ten being maximum effort, I'd say that doing TM is about a 1.1, and sixth level calculus about a 9.9. And, I don't recall anyone ever complaining about basic TM being difficult. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
From: emilymae...@yahoo.com emilymae...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC Richard, is your point here that you believe Rama was a magician? O.K. If this brings you closure than go with it. Is this relevant to anything or anybody? I made my point and I'm letting it go. Try to do the same. You might feel better. Emily, there are only two reasons Willytex keeps harping on this. First, he's jealous of anyone who has had spiritual experiences he hasn't, which kinda includes everybody, but especially anyone who says he's witnessed siddhis being performed. Second, he keeps doing it in the hope he'll push my buttons and get a rise out of me. He does this because when I or anyone else is critical of Maharishi, that pushes *his* buttons. What he doesn't realize is that I got out of the defending Rama or even defending my experiences with him rut years ago. The other aspect of all of this that continues to baffle me, just for the record, is how incredibly hung up people seem to be on the flashy stuff, like levitation. I've been there, done that with witnessing that, and I really don't understand their obsession. We witnessed this kinda stuff so often that it quickly became ho-hum. And I was never there for the flash anyway; the reason I stuck around with the Rama guy for so long was because of what it was like to meditate with him (at least in the early years). Whatever else he may have been (including being a charlatan and more than a bit of a dick), he could meditate like gangbusters. There was no issue of stilling thoughts sitting in those rooms with him; the silence was so powerful that you simply *couldn't* have thoughts. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/28/2014 7:27 PM, emilymaenot@... wrote: The point I was making to you is that it is false to continue to state that Barry was the *only* person to have the experience of Rama levitating. According to Barry, the levitation was not REAL- it was just a Rama SIDDHI thing. A magician can do a lot when he is up on a stage in a dark lecture hall with assistants all around. It's not complicated. H.P Blavatsky apparently used to do these kinds of parlor tricks all the time. Go figure. There have been numerous reports of mass hysteria in many cult groups, resulting in cases of group think in which people all get stoned on psychedelics in a public park and proclaim they had just seen the Holy Ghost. This happened one time on Hippie Hill in Golden Gate Park in SF back in 1968. The experience was real, but it was just an illusion, since everyone knows that the Holy Ghost doesn't exist, according to Barry. Go figure. Have you ever seen a performance by David Blaine the American magician, illusionist and endurance artist?
[FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
What we all need to understand about Share is that for her, avoiding acknowledging reality is a WIN; that's what she enjoys. It makes her feel SMART to mislead, to be disingenuous, to twist words, to obfuscate, even to lie outright. What she doesn't realize is that she's not very good at it, so it actually makes her look DUMB because what she's doing is so obvious. Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe? Maybe you use them indirectly as both Ann and I have Apple products that we use to post here and you are using my post to reply to. I'm not judging the appropriateness of your choice of right and wrong, I'm just reminding you that, based on what you wrote, you *do* reduce things to right and wrong, thus invalidating or rendering inconsistent your statement that you don't think like that. My answer to your answer is I don't know. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : So Emily, when Ann wrote about me you do not use Apple computers what do you think would have been an appropriate answer?! On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:28 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ok, if you say so. (RIGHT) I figure you are not very savvy technically (RIGHT) and that you do not use Apple computers.(RIGHT) I figure you did not know Apple Stores existed (RIGHT) nor did you realize how cool they are, all simplistic design, glass and that they call their computer experts geniuses. (RIGHT) I figure you figure that getting out of FF twice a year amounts to some sort of cultural pinnacle (WRONG) and I figure you took exception to me making fun of the fact you don't know about Apple Stores.(WRONG) Is that enough figuring for one day do you think? (DON'T KNOW) Well Share, you indicated 5 rights, 2 wrongs, and 1 don't know. it appears that you *do* look at at least some things in a right and wrong kind of a way. Are you *sure* you know enough to use those terms, even as you apply them to you? Very black and white thinking, imho. I am surprised that you didn't know that Apple stores even existed! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Well Emily, Ann was making assumptions about me and I was giving her feedback about her assumptions about me... On Friday, March 28, 2014 12:40 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: I understand what you are saying Share, but you still interpreted her figuring as right and wrong. Are you experiencing cognitive dissonance right now - in the sense that your behavior is not in line with your beliefs? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
Why do we all need to understand your opinion, Judy?! And even if we do, what then?! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:28 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: What we all need to understand about Share is that for her, avoiding acknowledging reality is a WIN; that's what she enjoys. It makes her feel SMART to mislead, to be disingenuous, to twist words, to obfuscate, even to lie outright. What she doesn't realize is that she's not very good at it, so it actually makes her look DUMB because what she's doing is so obvious. Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe? Maybe you use them indirectly as both Ann and I have Apple products that we use to post here and you are using my post to reply to. I'm not judging the appropriateness of your choice of right and wrong, I'm just reminding you that, based on what you wrote, you *do* reduce things to right and wrong, thus invalidating or rendering inconsistent your statement that you don't think like that. My answer to your answer is I don't know. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : So Emily, when Ann wrote about me you do not use Apple computers what do you think would have been an appropriate answer?! On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:28 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ok, if you say so. (RIGHT) I figure you are not very savvy technically (RIGHT) and that you do not use Apple computers.(RIGHT) I figure you did not know Apple Stores existed (RIGHT) nor did you realize how cool they are, all simplistic design, glass and that they call their computer experts geniuses. (RIGHT) I figure you figure that getting out of FF twice a year amounts to some sort of cultural pinnacle (WRONG) and I figure you took exception to me making fun of the fact you don't know about Apple Stores.(WRONG) Is that enough figuring for one day do you think? (DON'T KNOW) Well Share, you indicated 5 rights, 2 wrongs, and 1 don't know. it appears that you *do* look at at least some things in a right and wrong kind of a way. Are you *sure* you know enough to use those terms, even as you apply them to you? Very black and white thinking, imho. I am surprised that you didn't know that Apple stores even existed! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Well Emily, Ann was making assumptions about me and I was giving her feedback about her assumptions about me... On Friday, March 28, 2014 12:40 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: I understand what you are saying Share, but you still interpreted her figuring as right and wrong. Are you experiencing cognitive
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
I think my family kinda nailed it. Once you understand that she's a psychotic cult bitch, what more is there to learn? From: Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today Why do we all need to understand your opinion, Judy?! And even if we do, what then?! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:28 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: What we all need to understand about Share is that for her, avoiding acknowledging reality is a WIN; that's what she enjoys. It makes her feel SMART to mislead, to be disingenuous, to twist words, to obfuscate, even to lie outright. What she doesn't realize is that she's not very good at it, so it actually makes her look DUMB because what she's doing is so obvious. Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe? Maybe you use them indirectly as both Ann and I have Apple products that we use to post here and you are using my post to reply to. I'm not judging the appropriateness of your choice of right and wrong, I'm just reminding you that, based on what you wrote, you *do* reduce things to right and wrong, thus invalidating or rendering inconsistent your statement that you don't think like that. My answer to your answer is I don't know. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : So Emily, when Ann wrote about me you do not use Apple computers what do you think would have been an appropriate answer?! On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:28 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ok, if you say so. (RIGHT) I figure you are not very savvy technically (RIGHT) and that you do not use Apple computers.(RIGHT) I figure you did not know Apple Stores existed (RIGHT) nor did you realize how cool they are, all simplistic design, glass and that they call their computer experts geniuses. (RIGHT) I figure you figure that getting out of FF twice a year amounts to some sort of cultural pinnacle (WRONG) and I figure you took exception to me making fun of the fact you don't know about Apple Stores.(WRONG) Is that enough figuring for one day do you think? (DON'T KNOW) Well Share, you indicated 5 rights, 2 wrongs, and 1 don't know. it appears that you *do* look at at least some things in a right and wrong kind of a way. Are you *sure* you know enough to use those terms, even as you apply them to you? Very black and white thinking, imho. I am surprised that you didn't know that Apple stores even existed! ---In
Re: [FairfieldLife] What We Did Today
On 3/28/2014 7:38 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Opsie-Share. So, do you own any Apple products?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Below: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : From: emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC Richard, is your point here that you believe Rama was a magician? O.K. If this brings you closure than go with it. Is this relevant to anything or anybody? I made my point and I'm letting it go. Try to do the same. You might feel better. Emily, there are only two reasons Willytex keeps harping on this. First, he's jealous of anyone who has had spiritual experiences he hasn't, which kinda includes everybody, but especially anyone who says he's witnessed siddhis being performed. Second, he keeps doing it in the hope he'll push my buttons and get a rise out of me. He does this because when I or anyone else is critical of Maharishi, that pushes *his* buttons. What he doesn't realize is that I got out of the defending Rama or even defending my experiences with him rut years ago. Yes, it seems that you did. I am trying to help Richard move along as well as he has been harping on dead Rama now for several years now, at least; perhaps Rama is bothering him from the other side? :) Fred Lenz needed a lot of attention. The other aspect of all of this that continues to baffle me, just for the record, is how incredibly hung up people seem to be on the flashy stuff, like levitation. I've been there, done that with witnessing that, and I really don't understand their obsession. We witnessed this kinda stuff so often that it quickly became ho-hum. And I was never there for the flash anyway; the reason I stuck around with the Rama guy for so long was because of what it was like to meditate with him (at least in the early years). Whatever else he may have been (including being a charlatan and more than a bit of a dick), he could meditate like gangbusters. There was no issue of stilling thoughts sitting in those rooms with him; the silence was so powerful that you simply *couldn't* have thoughts. I think this is the main point; the flash served as the hook or draw, but there was *something* that was more meaningful happening below the surface for many that he was able to facilitate (at least in the early years) before he succumbed fully to the dark side of himself, so to speak. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/28/2014 7:27 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: The point I was making to you is that it is false to continue to state that Barry was the *only* person to have the experience of Rama levitating. According to Barry, the levitation was not REAL- it was just a Rama SIDDHI thing. A magician can do a lot when he is up on a stage in a dark lecture hall with assistants all around. It's not complicated. H.P Blavatsky apparently used to do these kinds of parlor tricks all the time. Go figure. There have been numerous reports of mass hysteria in many cult groups, resulting in cases of group think in which people all get stoned on psychedelics in a public park and proclaim they had just seen the Holy Ghost. This happened one time on Hippie Hill in Golden Gate Park in SF back in 1968. The experience was real, but it was just an illusion, since everyone knows that the Holy Ghost doesn't exist, according to Barry. Go figure. Have you ever seen a performance by David Blaine the American magician, illusionist and endurance artist?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
We know better how to deal with you when we know what drives you. We don't expect you to behave like a normal person who doesn't stand on their head to avoid reality, who doesn't think it's fun to mislead and obfuscate and be disingenuous and lie outright the way you do. Why do we all need to understand your opinion, Judy?! And even if we do, what then?! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:28 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: What we all need to understand about Share is that for her, avoiding acknowledging reality is a WIN; that's what she enjoys. It makes her feel SMART to mislead, to be disingenuous, to twist words, to obfuscate, even to lie outright. What she doesn't realize is that she's not very good at it, so it actually makes her look DUMB because what she's doing is so obvious. Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe? Maybe you use them indirectly as both Ann and I have Apple products that we use to post here and you are using my post to reply to. I'm not judging the appropriateness of your choice of right and wrong, I'm just reminding you that, based on what you wrote, you *do* reduce things to right and wrong, thus invalidating or rendering inconsistent your statement that you don't think like that. My answer to your answer is I don't know. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : So Emily, when Ann wrote about me you do not use Apple computers what do you think would have been an appropriate answer?! On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:28 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ok, if you say so. (RIGHT) I figure you are not very savvy technically (RIGHT) and that you do not use Apple computers.(RIGHT) I figure you did not know Apple Stores existed (RIGHT) nor did you realize how cool they are, all simplistic design, glass and that they call their computer experts geniuses. (RIGHT) I figure you figure that getting out of FF twice a year amounts to some sort of cultural pinnacle (WRONG) and I figure you took exception to me making fun of the fact you don't know about Apple Stores.(WRONG) Is that enough figuring for one day do you think? (DON'T KNOW) Well Share, you indicated 5 rights, 2 wrongs, and 1 don't know. it appears that you *do* look at at least some things in a right and wrong kind of a way. Are you *sure* you know enough to use those terms, even as you apply them to you? Very black and white thinking, imho. I am surprised that you didn't know that Apple stores even existed! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Well Emily, Ann was making
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
It would be nice Turkey, if you would stop with the punk ass name calling. It is so uncreative; it is so rude. It is so unneccesary and reflects on you so badly. IMHO. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : I think my family kinda nailed it. Once you understand that she's a psychotic cult bitch, what more is there to learn? From: Share Long sharelong60@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today Why do we all need to understand your opinion, Judy?! And even if we do, what then?! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:28 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: What we all need to understand about Share is that for her, avoiding acknowledging reality is a WIN; that's what she enjoys. It makes her feel SMART to mislead, to be disingenuous, to twist words, to obfuscate, even to lie outright. What she doesn't realize is that she's not very good at it, so it actually makes her look DUMB because what she's doing is so obvious. Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe? Maybe you use them indirectly as both Ann and I have Apple products that we use to post here and you are using my post to reply to. I'm not judging the appropriateness of your choice of right and wrong, I'm just reminding you that, based on what you wrote, you *do* reduce things to right and wrong, thus invalidating or rendering inconsistent your statement that you don't think like that. My answer to your answer is I don't know. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : So Emily, when Ann wrote about me you do not use Apple computers what do you think would have been an appropriate answer?! On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:28 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ok, if you say so. (RIGHT) I figure you are not very savvy technically (RIGHT) and that you do not use Apple computers.(RIGHT) I figure you did not know Apple Stores existed (RIGHT) nor did you realize how cool they are, all simplistic design, glass and that they call their computer experts geniuses. (RIGHT) I figure you figure that getting out of FF twice a year amounts to some sort of cultural pinnacle (WRONG) and I figure you took exception to me making fun of the fact you don't know about Apple Stores.(WRONG) Is that enough figuring for one day do you think? (DON'T KNOW) Well Share, you indicated 5 rights, 2 wrongs, and 1 don't know. it appears that you *do* look at at least some things in a right and wrong kind of a way. Are you
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
Barry also thinks it's FUN to lie and mislead, etc., etc. He knows I'm neither psychotic nor a cultist; he also knows he is vastly more bitchy than I am. If his family really thinks I'm a psychotic cult bitch, it's because they're so stupid they believe what he tells them. I think my family kinda nailed it. Once you understand that she's a psychotic cult bitch, what more is there to learn? From: Share Long sharelong60@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today Why do we all need to understand your opinion, Judy?! And even if we do, what then?! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:28 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: What we all need to understand about Share is that for her, avoiding acknowledging reality is a WIN; that's what she enjoys. It makes her feel SMART to mislead, to be disingenuous, to twist words, to obfuscate, even to lie outright. What she doesn't realize is that she's not very good at it, so it actually makes her look DUMB because what she's doing is so obvious. Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe? Maybe you use them indirectly as both Ann and I have Apple products that we use to post here and you are using my post to reply to. I'm not judging the appropriateness of your choice of right and wrong, I'm just reminding you that, based on what you wrote, you *do* reduce things to right and wrong, thus invalidating or rendering inconsistent your statement that you don't think like that. My answer to your answer is I don't know. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : So Emily, when Ann wrote about me you do not use Apple computers what do you think would have been an appropriate answer?! On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:28 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ok, if you say so. (RIGHT) I figure you are not very savvy technically (RIGHT) and that you do not use Apple computers.(RIGHT) I figure you did not know Apple Stores existed (RIGHT) nor did you realize how cool they are, all simplistic design, glass and that they call their computer experts geniuses. (RIGHT) I figure you figure that getting out of FF twice a year amounts to some sort of cultural pinnacle (WRONG) and I figure you took exception to me making fun of the fact you don't know about Apple Stores.(WRONG) Is that enough figuring for one day do you think? (DON'T KNOW) Well Share, you indicated 5 rights, 2 wrongs, and 1 don't know. it appears that you *do* look at at least some things in
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
It is also accurate, and the most concise way to express it. I live with a family of writers. From: emilymae...@yahoo.com emilymae...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today It would be nice Turkey, if you would stop with the punk ass name calling. It is so uncreative; it is so rude. It is so unneccesary and reflects on you so badly. IMHO. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : I think my family kinda nailed it. Once you understand that she's a psychotic cult bitch, what more is there to learn? From: Share Long sharelong60@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today Why do we all need to understand your opinion, Judy?! And even if we do, what then?! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:28 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: What we all need to understand about Share is that for her, avoiding acknowledging reality is a WIN; that's what she enjoys. It makes her feel SMART to mislead, to be disingenuous, to twist words, to obfuscate, even to lie outright. What she doesn't realize is that she's not very good at it, so it actually makes her look DUMB because what she's doing is so obvious. Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe? Maybe you use them indirectly as both Ann and I have Apple products that we use to post here and you are using my post to reply to. I'm not judging the appropriateness of your choice of right and wrong, I'm just reminding you that, based on what you wrote, you *do* reduce things to right and wrong, thus invalidating or rendering inconsistent your statement that you don't think like that. My answer to your answer is I don't know. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : So Emily, when Ann wrote about me you do not use Apple computers what do you think would have been an appropriate answer?! On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:28 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ok, if you say so. (RIGHT) I figure you are not very savvy technically (RIGHT) and that you do not use Apple computers.(RIGHT) I figure you did not know Apple Stores existed (RIGHT) nor did you realize how cool they are, all simplistic design, glass and that they call their computer experts geniuses. (RIGHT) I figure you figure that getting out of FF twice a year amounts to some sort of cultural pinnacle (WRONG) and I figure you took
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
As Barry knows, it's nowhere near accurate. It is also accurate, and the most concise way to express it. I live with a family of writers. From: emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today It would be nice Turkey, if you would stop with the punk ass name calling. It is so uncreative; it is so rude. It is so unneccesary and reflects on you so badly. IMHO. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : I think my family kinda nailed it. Once you understand that she's a psychotic cult bitch, what more is there to learn? From: Share Long sharelong60@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today Why do we all need to understand your opinion, Judy?! And even if we do, what then?! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:28 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: What we all need to understand about Share is that for her, avoiding acknowledging reality is a WIN; that's what she enjoys. It makes her feel SMART to mislead, to be disingenuous, to twist words, to obfuscate, even to lie outright. What she doesn't realize is that she's not very good at it, so it actually makes her look DUMB because what she's doing is so obvious. Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe? Maybe you use them indirectly as both Ann and I have Apple products that we use to post here and you are using my post to reply to. I'm not judging the appropriateness of your choice of right and wrong, I'm just reminding you that, based on what you wrote, you *do* reduce things to right and wrong, thus invalidating or rendering inconsistent your statement that you don't think like that. My answer to your answer is I don't know. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : So Emily, when Ann wrote about me you do not use Apple computers what do you think would have been an appropriate answer?! On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:28 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ok, if you say so. (RIGHT) I figure you are not very savvy technically (RIGHT) and that you do not use Apple computers.(RIGHT) I figure you did not know Apple Stores existed (RIGHT) nor did you realize how cool they are, all simplistic design, glass and that they call their computer experts geniuses. (RIGHT) I figure you figure that getting out of FF twice a year amounts to some sort of cultural pinnacle (WRONG) and I figure
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
authfriend wrote: What we all need to understand... All that we need to understand is who or who has not visited an Apple Store and is familiar with Apple apps. According to my sources, the entire graphic arts department at MUM uses Apple Macintosh computers running Adobe software. *Inside the MUM Graphic Arts Department:* [image: Inline image 1] On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 10:28 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: *What we all need to understand about Share is that for her, avoiding acknowledging reality is a WIN; that's what she enjoys. It makes her feel SMART to mislead, to be disingenuous, to twist words, to obfuscate, even to lie outright. What she doesn't realize is that she's not very good at it, so it actually makes her look DUMB because what she's doing is so obvious.* Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe? Maybe you use them indirectly as both Ann and I have Apple products that we use to post here and you are using my post to reply to. I'm not judging the appropriateness of your choice of right and wrong, I'm just reminding you that, based on what you wrote, you *do* reduce things to right and wrong, thus invalidating or rendering inconsistent your statement that you don't think like that. My answer to your answer is I don't know. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : So Emily, when Ann wrote about me you do not use Apple computers what do you think would have been an appropriate answer?! On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:28 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ok, if you say so. (RIGHT) I figure you are not very savvy technically (RIGHT) and that you do not use Apple computers.(RIGHT) I figure you did not know Apple Stores existed (RIGHT) nor did you realize how cool they are, all simplistic design, glass and that they call their computer experts geniuses. (RIGHT) I figure you figure that getting out of FF twice a year amounts to some sort of cultural pinnacle (WRONG) and I figure you took exception to me making fun of the fact you don't know about Apple Stores.(WRONG) Is that enough figuring for one day do you think? (DON'T KNOW) Well Share, you indicated 5 rights, 2 wrongs, and 1 don't know. it appears that you *do* look at at least some things in a right and wrong kind of a way. Are you *sure* you know enough to use those terms, even as you apply them to you? Very black and white thinking, imho. I am surprised that you didn't know that Apple stores even existed! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Well Emily, Ann was making assumptions about me and I was giving her feedback about her
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
Judy, now you're sounding down right looney to me! For example, who is this we you're pretending speak for? Maybe it's the royal we. MPD we? And I would think that in a yahoo group there are just a few ways to deal with another poster. In fact, given your negative opinion of me, I'm surprised that you continue to engage with me at all, often even butting into my exchanges with others to do so! And I have no idea what's brought on this latest spate from you. Except that you called me dishonest yesterday about the consistency quote and I explained that it was an honest mistake. And you did not reply to that. So I guess you're feeling embarrassed and guilty and this is why you're so upset today... On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:55 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: We know better how to deal with you when we know what drives you. We don't expect you to behave like a normal person who doesn't stand on their head to avoid reality, who doesn't think it's fun to mislead and obfuscate and be disingenuous and lie outright the way you do. Why do we all need to understand your opinion, Judy?! And even if we do, what then?! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:28 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: What we all need to understand about Share is that for her, avoiding acknowledging reality is a WIN; that's what she enjoys. It makes her feel SMART to mislead, to be disingenuous, to twist words, to obfuscate, even to lie outright. What she doesn't realize is that she's not very good at it, so it actually makes her look DUMB because what she's doing is so obvious. Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe? Maybe you use them indirectly as both Ann and I have Apple products that we use to post here and you are using my post to reply to. I'm not judging the appropriateness of your choice of right and wrong, I'm just reminding you that, based on what you wrote, you *do* reduce things to right and wrong, thus invalidating or rendering inconsistent your statement that you don't think like that. My answer to your answer is I don't know. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : So Emily, when Ann wrote about me you do not use Apple computers what do you think would have been an appropriate answer?! On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:28 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ok, if you say so. (RIGHT) I figure you are not very savvy technically (RIGHT) and that you do not use Apple computers.(RIGHT) I figure you did not know Apple Stores existed (RIGHT) nor did you realize how cool they are, all simplistic design, glass and that
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
From: Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today Judy, now you're sounding down right looney to me! For example, who is this we you're pretending speak for? Maybe it's the royal we. MPD we? I shall defer to Mark Twain: Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we.'
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
Share, I've told you before, your mind-reading abilities are not up to snuff. (And you're a hypocrite to boot, because you chide others for mind-reading as if you never did it yourself.) We in this case refers to FFLers who get into discussions with you that involve some element of controversy. But I don't believe you really needed me to tell you that. In fact, your response here exemplifies many of the points I just made about your general dishonesty. Judy, now you're sounding down right looney to me! For example, who is this we you're pretending speak for? Maybe it's the royal we. MPD we? And I would think that in a yahoo group there are just a few ways to deal with another poster. In fact, given your negative opinion of me, I'm surprised that you continue to engage with me at all, often even butting into my exchanges with others to do so! And I have no idea what's brought on this latest spate from you. Except that you called me dishonest yesterday about the consistency quote and I explained that it was an honest mistake. And you did not reply to that. So I guess you're feeling embarrassed and guilty and this is why you're so upset today... On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:55 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: We know better how to deal with you when we know what drives you. We don't expect you to behave like a normal person who doesn't stand on their head to avoid reality, who doesn't think it's fun to mislead and obfuscate and be disingenuous and lie outright the way you do. Why do we all need to understand your opinion, Judy?! And even if we do, what then?! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:28 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: What we all need to understand about Share is that for her, avoiding acknowledging reality is a WIN; that's what she enjoys. It makes her feel SMART to mislead, to be disingenuous, to twist words, to obfuscate, even to lie outright. What she doesn't realize is that she's not very good at it, so it actually makes her look DUMB because what she's doing is so obvious. Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe? Maybe you use them indirectly as both Ann and I have Apple products that we use to post here and you are using my post to reply to. I'm not judging the appropriateness of your choice of right and wrong, I'm just reminding you that, based on what you wrote, you *do* reduce things to right and wrong, thus invalidating or rendering inconsistent your statement that you don't think like that. My answer to your answer is I don't know. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity
On 3/26/2014 7:09 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Here is a mantra you can use Mantras found in books or online are not true bija mantras. Bija mantras by definition are given in an initiation. Lists of bija mantras found on the internet are so much non-sense gibberish unless you receive the esoteric instructions from a qualified guru. Maybe it's time to review what we know. Definition of bija mantra: A morpheme or quasi morpheme, or a phoneme, or quasi phoneme, or a series of mixed morphemes, phoneme, qausi morphemes, or quasi phoneme, arranged in traditional patterns, which are imparted by one guru to one chela in the course of diksha.
[FairfieldLife] DST and Heart Attacks
Study shows that Daylight Saving Time may increase the risk of heart attacks: http://news.yahoo.com/daylight-saving-time-linked-heart-attacks-study-143944681.html Not to mention that people wind up eating an hour earlier than usual throwing the body clock off and probably leading to obesity.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Gee, I was born Gay!
Don't get so upset about it Billy or you'll start an earthquake. :-D On 03/28/2014 09:16 PM, wgm4u wrote: I don't think so- *Actually homosexuality has been explained thousands of years ago by the Eastern doctrine of Karma and Reincarnation. We are all the products of decisions we've made in previous lives; good, bad or indifferent! To think we just all of a sudden are born here like chickens hatched from eggs is silly to say the least. We all have pasts and our present circumstances are the results of decisions made in the past, yes, even homosexuality. So you see, we are all responsible for who and what we are!! Born with the propensity to be Gay? maybe, but due to your own choices in past lives. God or nature didn't make you Gay, that was YOUR choice! or so it says in Eastern Philosophy.*
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
Turkey, Judy is not psychotic. Judy is not in a cult. Judy is not a psychotic cult bitch (I don't even know what that means, to be honest - sounds like something that would have been more appropriately assigned to Rama). The fact that you live with a family of writers is irrelevant to your use of this lame term. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : It is also accurate, and the most concise way to express it. I live with a family of writers. From: emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today It would be nice Turkey, if you would stop with the punk ass name calling. It is so uncreative; it is so rude. It is so unneccesary and reflects on you so badly. IMHO. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote : I think my family kinda nailed it. Once you understand that she's a psychotic cult bitch, what more is there to learn? From: Share Long sharelong60@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today Why do we all need to understand your opinion, Judy?! And even if we do, what then?! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:28 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: What we all need to understand about Share is that for her, avoiding acknowledging reality is a WIN; that's what she enjoys. It makes her feel SMART to mislead, to be disingenuous, to twist words, to obfuscate, even to lie outright. What she doesn't realize is that she's not very good at it, so it actually makes her look DUMB because what she's doing is so obvious. Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe? Maybe you use them indirectly as both Ann and I have Apple products that we use to post here and you are using my post to reply to. I'm not judging the appropriateness of your choice of right and wrong, I'm just reminding you that, based on what you wrote, you *do* reduce things to right and wrong, thus invalidating or rendering inconsistent your statement that you don't think like that. My answer to your answer is I don't know. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : So Emily, when Ann wrote about me you do not use Apple computers what do you think would have been an appropriate answer?! On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:28 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ok, if you say so. (RIGHT) I figure you are not very savvy technically (RIGHT) and that you do not
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
On 3/29/2014 10:52 AM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: Is this relevant to anything or anybody? Only to those invested in the TMSP. The question posed was has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying - levitation? The only respondent on FFL that answered yes was Barry, who claimed he had seen Rama levitate hundreds of times. My question is, how is this possible? It's not a really difficult question to answer. Here's what Shemp McGurk thought of Barry's claim: To me, the important question is: why did you feel the compulsion to tell us that you DID see real levitation when it is obvious that -- even in your own words -- what you experienced was very far from what could remotely be described as real? - Shemp McGurk Levitation/has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying? https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/63670
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
Share, Judy is stating her understanding of how and why you behave like you do to the larger FFL group. This is her right on this forum and I find it insightful, personally, given my last attempt at an exchange with you. You are not able to control who chooses to post on any particular thread; that is the nature of a public forum. This has been made clear to you many, many, times. Ask yourself why you refuse to understand this. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Why do we all need to understand your opinion, Judy?! And even if we do, what then?! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:28 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: What we all need to understand about Share is that for her, avoiding acknowledging reality is a WIN; that's what she enjoys. It makes her feel SMART to mislead, to be disingenuous, to twist words, to obfuscate, even to lie outright. What she doesn't realize is that she's not very good at it, so it actually makes her look DUMB because what she's doing is so obvious. Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe? Maybe you use them indirectly as both Ann and I have Apple products that we use to post here and you are using my post to reply to. I'm not judging the appropriateness of your choice of right and wrong, I'm just reminding you that, based on what you wrote, you *do* reduce things to right and wrong, thus invalidating or rendering inconsistent your statement that you don't think like that. My answer to your answer is I don't know. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : So Emily, when Ann wrote about me you do not use Apple computers what do you think would have been an appropriate answer?! On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:28 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ok, if you say so. (RIGHT) I figure you are not very savvy technically (RIGHT) and that you do not use Apple computers.(RIGHT) I figure you did not know Apple Stores existed (RIGHT) nor did you realize how cool they are, all simplistic design, glass and that they call their computer experts geniuses. (RIGHT) I figure you figure that getting out of FF twice a year amounts to some sort of cultural pinnacle (WRONG) and I figure you took exception to me making fun of the fact you don't know about Apple Stores.(WRONG) Is that enough figuring for one day do you think? (DON'T KNOW) Well Share, you indicated 5 rights, 2 wrongs, and 1 don't know. it appears that you *do* look at at least some things in a right and wrong kind of a way. Are you *sure* you know enough to use those terms, even as you
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
On 3/29/2014 10:23 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: First, he's jealous of anyone who has had spiritual experiences he hasn't, Once, when I was down in Mexico, I saw God Almighty, His beautiful wife Sophia, and their daughter Ashley, and their son, Baal, all levitating right in front of me alongside the Holy Ghost. So, I'd say my experience was more profound than your experience of seeing Lenz levitate, even thousands of times. My one single spiritual experience makes all yours look like a tiny ant hill compared to a tall mountain.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Levitation/has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying?
Thanks Richard! Just curious. I'm going to take a mental health day as it is sunny outside and I hope you do too - actually, you might think about taking a mental health week or two, given the number of monkeys that have been flying out your ass. Monkeys can't fly, Emily, whether out of my ass or anywhere else. But, I'd say the chances of a monkey flying are better odds than Fred Lenz levitating up in the air in a cloud of golden light, even one inch.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
On 3/29/2014 10:23 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: Second, he keeps doing it in the hope he'll push my buttons and get a rise out of me. So, how are you going to rise up if you can't fly? Maybe you better pad your room with foam so that when you fall down it won't hurt so bad. I guess when you get up there in the air you could push a panic button or an easy button from Staples. Good luck. Let me know when you reach 2nd stage of yogic flying. Try to get it on video if you can. Thanks.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Below. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 10:52 AM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: Is this relevant to anything or anybody? Only to those invested in the TMSP. Oh...well, that would be Barry, right? The question posed was has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying - levitation? Are you still asking Barry or those invested in the TMSP, like Share? Why don't you ask Share? The only respondent on FFL that answered yes was Barry, who claimed he had seen Rama levitate hundreds of times. My question is, how is this possible? It's not a really difficult question to answer. Then why do you keep asking it? You've answered yourself many times; you must not be comfortable with your answer. Here's what Shemp McGurk thought of Barry's claim: Why do we care what he thought on this long, long, ago? It all goes back to one's definition and context of what real means in terms of a subjective experience. We've been over that recently. What is confusing for you? To me, the important question is: why did you feel the compulsion to tell us that you DID see real levitation when it is obvious that -- even in your own words -- what you experienced was very far from what could remotely be described as real? - Shemp McGurk Levitation/has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying? https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/63670 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/63670
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
On 3/29/2014 10:23 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: the reason I stuck around with the Rama guy for so long was because of what it was like to meditate with him (at least in the early years). So, I wonder why after all those years and all those dollars spent on Rama seminars, Lenz never transferred enlightenment to Barry? And, what happened to all the money? Go figure. Rama (Dr. Frederick Lenz) was an American Buddha whose life was dedicated to teaching meditation and transmitting enlightenment. http://www.ramameditationsociety.org/rama-dr-frederick-lenz
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Levitation/has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying?
*You* stated that monkeys were flying and levitating, both, out of your rear end. You stated it so many times that it seemed you were, in fact, stuck in this delusion. For all your focus on Fred Lenz, you appear not to have read any of the first-hand experiences of the many students that experienced what they say they did. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion that he is a magician. He's dead now, so you won't be able to check it out yourself, personally, with him. What is your point in obsessing on dead Fred? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : Thanks Richard! Just curious. I'm going to take a mental health day as it is sunny outside and I hope you do too - actually, you might think about taking a mental health week or two, given the number of monkeys that have been flying out your ass. Monkeys can't fly, Emily, whether out of my ass or anywhere else. But, I'd say the chances of a monkey flying are better odds than Fred Lenz levitating up in the air in a cloud of golden light, even one inch.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
On 3/29/2014 12:24 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: Only to those invested in the TMSP. Oh...well, that would be Barry, right? Yeah, he said he gave the TMO $5,000 to learn the TMSP. So,I was just wondering if he learned anything about that, and why he would then give Lenz another $10,000 more just to watch Fred levitate. It just doesn't make any sense. Now it looks like Barry has done a 180 and sounds more like John Knapp or Mike Doughney. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Why are you asking all these questions here on FFL years after Fred is dead? Why do you want to know? Why don't you post to a Rama site? Why are you so obsessed with Fred? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 10:23 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: the reason I stuck around with the Rama guy for so long was because of what it was like to meditate with him (at least in the early years). So, I wonder why after all those years and all those dollars spent on Rama seminars, Lenz never transferred enlightenment to Barry? And, what happened to all the money? Go figure. Rama (Dr. Frederick Lenz) was an American Buddha whose life was dedicated to teaching meditation and transmitting enlightenment. http://www.ramameditationsociety.org/rama-dr-frederick-lenz http://www.ramameditationsociety.org/rama-dr-frederick-lenz
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
And how many years ago was that? Why do you give a rats ass? Why don't you update the question and ask it of someone who is currently involved, like Share, for example. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 12:24 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: Only to those invested in the TMSP. Oh...well, that would be Barry, right? Yeah, he said he gave the TMO $5,000 to learn the TMSP. So,I was just wondering if he learned anything about that, and why he would then give Lenz another $10,000 more just to watch Fred levitate. It just doesn't make any sense. Now it looks like Barry has done a 180 and sounds more like John Knapp or Mike Doughney. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
On 3/29/2014 12:24 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: The question posed was has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying - levitation? Are you still asking Barry or those invested in the TMSP, like Share? Why don't you ask Share? Asking anyone. Share, Judy, or anybody that knows about the program. I don't rule out levitation or becoming invisible, or even predicting the future in order to avoid the danger that lies ahead - I just want to know if anyone has experienced 2nd stage yogic flying? Is it complicated? I've already tried the Indian rope trick and the sweat lodge program. There is a scene in Dr. Who where he climbs up a ladder into the clouds in order to get into the Tardis, which turns out to be much bigger on the inside. We are thinking about buying us a little Tardis - the one like Crag Ferguson has sitting on his desk. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
On 3/29/2014 12:24 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: What is confusing for you? Why did Barry feel the compulsion to tell us that DID see real levitation when it is obvious that - even in his own words - what he experienced was very far from what could be remotely described as real? That's the confusing part, Emily. Levitation/has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying? https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/63670
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Re: We are thinking about buying us a little Tardis HA HA HA HA. SHARE, can you divine one of Richard's meaningful insights out of this statement of his? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 12:24 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: The question posed was has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying - levitation? Are you still asking Barry or those invested in the TMSP, like Share? Why don't you ask Share? Asking anyone. Share, Judy, or anybody that knows about the program. I don't rule out levitation or becoming invisible, or even predicting the future in order to avoid the danger that lies ahead - I just want to know if anyone has experienced 2nd stage yogic flying? Is it complicated? I've already tried the Indian rope trick and the sweat lodge program. There is a scene in Dr. Who where he climbs up a ladder into the clouds in order to get into the Tardis, which turns out to be much bigger on the inside. We are thinking about buying us a little Tardis - the one like Crag Ferguson has sitting on his desk. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
Ok, thanks turq and Mr. Twain. Judy does claim to be an editor so I guess that explains her continual use of we when posting on FFL. On Saturday, March 29, 2014 11:43 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today Judy, now you're sounding down right looney to me! For example, who is this we you're pretending speak for? Maybe it's the royal we. MPD we? I shall defer to Mark Twain: Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we.'
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Levitation/has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying?
On 3/29/2014 12:30 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: What is your point in obsessing on dead Fred? My point is that Barry is a True Believer.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Emily, Richard's main insight, imo, is that he enjoys life and doesn't take FFL arguments seriously. On Saturday, March 29, 2014 12:47 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: Re: We are thinking about buying us a little Tardis HA HA HA HA. SHARE, can you divine one of Richard's meaningful insights out of this statement of his? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 12:24 PM, emilymaenot@... wrote: The question posed was has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying - levitation? Are you still asking Barry or those invested in the TMSP, like Share? Why don't you ask Share? Asking anyone. Share, Judy, or anybody that knows about the program. I don't rule out levitation or becoming invisible, or even predicting the future in order to avoid the danger that lies ahead - I just want to know if anyone has experienced 2nd stage yogic flying? Is it complicated? I've already tried the Indian rope trick and the sweat lodge program. There is a scene in Dr. Who where he climbs up a ladder into the clouds in order to get into the Tardis, which turns out to be much bigger on the inside. We are thinking about buying us a little Tardis - the one like Crag Ferguson has sitting on his desk. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Richard, if you would stop parsing my conversation with you, you wouldn't have to keep repeating the answer I keep giving you. Do you disagree with me? Are you talking to me, or trying to have a conversation with Barry through me? IMO, it all depends on how word real is defined and within what context it is defined within. How do you define the word? Is there validity to something that feels real in the moment? Can being stuck in illusion constitute a state of reality for the person in illusion? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 12:24 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: What is confusing for you? Why did Barry feel the compulsion to tell us that DID see real levitation when it is obvious that - even in his own words - what he experienced was very far from what could be remotely described as real? That's the confusing part, Emily. Levitation/has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying? https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/63670 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/63670
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Watch out, Richard, endless rabbit hole dead ahead! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 12:56 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: Richard, if you would stop parsing my conversation with you, you wouldn't have to keep repeating the answer I keep giving you. Do you disagree with me? Are you talking to me, or trying to have a conversation with Barry through me? IMO, it all depends on how word real is defined and within what context it is defined within. How do you define the word? Is there validity to something that feels real in the moment? Can being stuck in illusion constitute a state of reality for the person in illusion? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 12:24 PM, emilymaenot@... wrote: What is confusing for you? Why did Barry feel the compulsion to tell us that DID see real levitation when it is obvious that - even in his own words - what he experienced was very far from what could be remotely described as real? That's the confusing part, Emily. Levitation/has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying? https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/63670
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
Duh, Judy! It's not mind reading when your words are right here to see and read. Nor is it mind reading when I ask you what use of we means?! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 11:44 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Share, I've told you before, your mind-reading abilities are not up to snuff. (And you're a hypocrite to boot, because you chide others for mind-reading as if you never did it yourself.) We in this case refers to FFLers who get into discussions with you that involve some element of controversy. But I don't believe you really needed me to tell you that. In fact, your response here exemplifies many of the points I just made about your general dishonesty. Judy, now you're sounding down right looney to me! For example, who is this we you're pretending speak for? Maybe it's the royal we. MPD we? And I would think that in a yahoo group there are just a few ways to deal with another poster. In fact, given your negative opinion of me, I'm surprised that you continue to engage with me at all, often even butting into my exchanges with others to do so! And I have no idea what's brought on this latest spate from you. Except that you called me dishonest yesterday about the consistency quote and I explained that it was an honest mistake. And you did not reply to that. So I guess you're feeling embarrassed and guilty and this is why you're so upset today... On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:55 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: We know better how to deal with you when we know what drives you. We don't expect you to behave like a normal person who doesn't stand on their head to avoid reality, who doesn't think it's fun to mislead and obfuscate and be disingenuous and lie outright the way you do. Why do we all need to understand your opinion, Judy?! And even if we do, what then?! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:28 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: What we all need to understand about Share is that for her, avoiding acknowledging reality is a WIN; that's what she enjoys. It makes her feel SMART to mislead, to be disingenuous, to twist words, to obfuscate, even to lie outright. What she doesn't realize is that she's not very good at it, so it actually makes her look DUMB because what she's doing is so obvious. Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe? Maybe you use them indirectly as both Ann and I have Apple products that we use to post here and you are using my post to reply to. I'm not judging the appropriateness of your choice of right and wrong, I'm just reminding you that, based on what you wrote, you *do* reduce things to right and
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Levitation/has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying?
Ohh, finally, your point. Well, I was happy recently that Judy a definition of what a True Believer is. I liked it. Are you a True Believer per the definition below? I am definitely not one. True Believers tend to believe in Absolutist terms (either l00% true or 100% false) and they can't tolerate situations in which: a. the truth is unknown b. the truth is midway between extremes c. simply unknowable d. variants such as true some of the time, but at other times not true, or true for some people but not others.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Do you think he needs almost or more than 200 posts a week to make this insight clear to you? Do you think he could communicate this in 10? After all, he isn't the only one who says enjoy life and don't take yourself too seriously. Are you just learning this? In your case, my opinion is that you should take yourself a little more seriously. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, Richard's main insight, imo, is that he enjoys life and doesn't take FFL arguments seriously. On Saturday, March 29, 2014 12:47 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Re: We are thinking about buying us a little Tardis HA HA HA HA. SHARE, can you divine one of Richard's meaningful insights out of this statement of his? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 12:24 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: The question posed was has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying - levitation? Are you still asking Barry or those invested in the TMSP, like Share? Why don't you ask Share? Asking anyone. Share, Judy, or anybody that knows about the program. I don't rule out levitation or becoming invisible, or even predicting the future in order to avoid the danger that lies ahead - I just want to know if anyone has experienced 2nd stage yogic flying? Is it complicated? I've already tried the Indian rope trick and the sweat lodge program. There is a scene in Dr. Who where he climbs up a ladder into the clouds in order to get into the Tardis, which turns out to be much bigger on the inside. We are thinking about buying us a little Tardis - the one like Crag Ferguson has sitting on his desk. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Emily, I find the majority of Richard's posts delightful so even 300 would be fine with me. Go figure! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 1:05 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: Do you think he needs almost or more than 200 posts a week to make this insight clear to you? Do you think he could communicate this in 10? After all, he isn't the only one who says enjoy life and don't take yourself too seriously. Are you just learning this? In your case, my opinion is that you should take yourself a little more seriously. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, Richard's main insight, imo, is that he enjoys life and doesn't take FFL arguments seriously. On Saturday, March 29, 2014 12:47 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Re: We are thinking about buying us a little Tardis HA HA HA HA. SHARE, can you divine one of Richard's meaningful insights out of this statement of his? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 12:24 PM, emilymaenot@... wrote: The question posed was has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying - levitation? Are you still asking Barry or those invested in the TMSP, like Share? Why don't you ask Share? Asking anyone. Share, Judy, or anybody that knows about the program. I don't rule out levitation or becoming invisible, or even predicting the future in order to avoid the danger that lies ahead - I just want to know if anyone has experienced 2nd stage yogic flying? Is it complicated? I've already tried the Indian rope trick and the sweat lodge program. There is a scene in Dr. Who where he climbs up a ladder into the clouds in order to get into the Tardis, which turns out to be much bigger on the inside. We are thinking about buying us a little Tardis - the one like Crag Ferguson has sitting on his desk. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Share, you are in love. Richard, the woman just can't get enough of your insights; act like a gentleman and try not to lead her on. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, I find the majority of Richard's posts delightful so even 300 would be fine with me. Go figure! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 1:05 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Do you think he needs almost or more than 200 posts a week to make this insight clear to you? Do you think he could communicate this in 10? After all, he isn't the only one who says enjoy life and don't take yourself too seriously. Are you just learning this? In your case, my opinion is that you should take yourself a little more seriously. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, Richard's main insight, imo, is that he enjoys life and doesn't take FFL arguments seriously. On Saturday, March 29, 2014 12:47 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Re: We are thinking about buying us a little Tardis HA HA HA HA. SHARE, can you divine one of Richard's meaningful insights out of this statement of his? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 12:24 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: The question posed was has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying - levitation? Are you still asking Barry or those invested in the TMSP, like Share? Why don't you ask Share? Asking anyone. Share, Judy, or anybody that knows about the program. I don't rule out levitation or becoming invisible, or even predicting the future in order to avoid the danger that lies ahead - I just want to know if anyone has experienced 2nd stage yogic flying? Is it complicated? I've already tried the Indian rope trick and the sweat lodge program. There is a scene in Dr. Who where he climbs up a ladder into the clouds in order to get into the Tardis, which turns out to be much bigger on the inside. We are thinking about buying us a little Tardis - the one like Crag Ferguson has sitting on his desk. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
According to Barry, the levitation was not REAL- it was just a Rama SIDDHI thing. A magician can do a lot when he is up on a stage in a dark lecture hall with assistants mall around. It's not complicated. H.P Blavatsky apparently used to do these kinds of parlor tricks all the time. Go figure. On 3/29/2014 10:21 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: As you know, Richard--because you quoted Barry's post saying so--according to Barry, he saw Lenz levitate in many different situations, not just lecture halls or places where he might have had help staging an illusion. It's fine to make Barry look foolish by questioning what it was that Barry saw or imagined he saw, but when you quote him and then lie about what he said, it makes you look like a worse fool than he is. If I was directly quoting Barry, I would have used quotation marks. Here is the full quote: I will also admit, for the same reasons, that there might have been some kind of psychic siddhi going on, in which people's perceptions were altered to allow them to see a phenomenon that might not have been present on a physical level. But there was never any suggestion of what was about to happen. The most he'd ever say was, Watch. He never said *what* to watch for, and levitation was only one of the siddhis he was good at, so there was no telling what, if anything, was going to happen. And yet most of us saw stuff, and everyone who saw it agreed on what was seen. - TurquoiseB
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Share, do you care to answer Richard's direct question to you as stated below? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 12:24 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: The question posed was has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying - levitation? Are you still asking Barry or those invested in the TMSP, like Share? Why don't you ask Share? Asking anyone. Share, Judy, or anybody that knows about the program. I don't rule out levitation or becoming invisible, or even predicting the future in order to avoid the danger that lies ahead - I just want to know if anyone has experienced 2nd stage yogic flying? Is it complicated?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
No, it doesn't, and furthermore, you know it doesn't. More dishonesty. Keep at it, Share. The more you say, the more you prove what I said about you. Ok, thanks turq and Mr. Twain. Judy does claim to be an editor so I guess that explains her continual use of we when posting on FFL. On Saturday, March 29, 2014 11:43 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... wrote: From: Share Long sharelong60@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today Judy, now you're sounding down right looney to me! For example, who is this we you're pretending speak for? Maybe it's the royal we. MPD we? I shall defer to Mark Twain: Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we.'
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
Share, her continual use of 'we' is not a true representation. Prove it. The key word you need to worry about here is continual. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Ok, thanks turq and Mr. Twain. Judy does claim to be an editor so I guess that explains her continual use of we when posting on FFL. On Saturday, March 29, 2014 11:43 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... wrote: From: Share Long sharelong60@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today Judy, now you're sounding down right looney to me! For example, who is this we you're pretending speak for? Maybe it's the royal we. MPD we? I shall defer to Mark Twain: Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we.'
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Share, what the heck do you mean by this? Try and be clear with me. Are you warning Richard about me? Or are you alerting him to the fact he's about to step into a rabbit hole that continues down through the earth's core to the other side of the planet and the space beyond? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Watch out, Richard, endless rabbit hole dead ahead! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 12:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Richard, if you would stop parsing my conversation with you, you wouldn't have to keep repeating the answer I keep giving you. Do you disagree with me? Are you talking to me, or trying to have a conversation with Barry through me? IMO, it all depends on how word real is defined and within what context it is defined within. How do you define the word? Is there validity to something that feels real in the moment? Can being stuck in illusion constitute a state of reality for the person in illusion? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 12:24 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: What is confusing for you? Why did Barry feel the compulsion to tell us that DID see real levitation when it is obvious that - even in his own words - what he experienced was very far from what could be remotely described as real? That's the confusing part, Emily. Levitation/has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying? https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/63670 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/63670
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
On 3/29/2014 10:21 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: according to Barry, he saw Lenz levitate in many different situations, not just lecture halls or places where he might have had help staging an illusion. Not much credence needs to be given to a few former cult members in their anonymous reports posted on the internet. But, I would suppose that if any of these events Barry mentioned did occur they would have been mentioned here, in the only book about Rama: 'Take Me For a Ride' Coming of age in a destructive cult. by Marl Laxer Outer Rim Press, 1993
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
Ok, Judy, then I hope you get rid of your tapeworms sooner rather than later. On Saturday, March 29, 2014 1:29 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: No, it doesn't, and furthermore, you know it doesn't. More dishonesty. Keep at it, Share. The more you say, the more you prove what I said about you. Ok, thanks turq and Mr. Twain. Judy does claim to be an editor so I guess that explains her continual use of we when posting on FFL. On Saturday, March 29, 2014 11:43 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... wrote: From:Share Long sharelong60@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today Judy, now you're sounding down right looney to me! For example, who is this we you're pretending speak for? Maybe it's the royal we. MPD we? I shall defer to Mark Twain: Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we.'
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Translation: No, Emily, I can't. But I'll pretend I can, because that's how I do things. Emily, Richard's main insight, imo, is that he enjoys life and doesn't take FFL arguments seriously. On Saturday, March 29, 2014 12:47 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Re: We are thinking about buying us a little Tardis HA HA HA HA. SHARE, can you divine one of Richard's meaningful insights out of this statement of his? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 12:24 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: The question posed was has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying - levitation? Are you still asking Barry or those invested in the TMSP, like Share? Why don't you ask Share? Asking anyone. Share, Judy, or anybody that knows about the program. I don't rule out levitation or becoming invisible, or even predicting the future in order to avoid the danger that lies ahead - I just want to know if anyone has experienced 2nd stage yogic flying? Is it complicated? I've already tried the Indian rope trick and the sweat lodge program. There is a scene in Dr. Who where he climbs up a ladder into the clouds in order to get into the Tardis, which turns out to be much bigger on the inside. We are thinking about buying us a little Tardis - the one like Crag Ferguson has sitting on his desk. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
On 3/29/2014 10:23 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: There was no issue of stilling thoughts sitting in those rooms with him; the silence was so powerful that you simply *couldn't* have thoughts. So, for what purpose would anyone sit still with no thoughts? You've already ruled out enlightenment. And, you've already discarded any scientific studies that would indicate any benefits from being in mental silence. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Emily, yes and yes. On Saturday, March 29, 2014 1:30 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: Share, what the heck do you mean by this? Try and be clear with me. Are you warning Richard about me? Or are you alerting him to the fact he's about to step into a rabbit hole that continues down through the earth's core to the other side of the planet and the space beyond? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Watch out, Richard, endless rabbit hole dead ahead! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 12:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Richard, if you would stop parsing my conversation with you, you wouldn't have to keep repeating the answer I keep giving you. Do you disagree with me? Are you talking to me, or trying to have a conversation with Barry through me? IMO, it all depends on how word real is defined and within what context it is defined within. How do you define the word? Is there validity to something that feels real in the moment? Can being stuck in illusion constitute a state of reality for the person in illusion? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 12:24 PM, emilymaenot@... wrote: What is confusing for you? Why did Barry feel the compulsion to tell us that DID see real levitation when it is obvious that - even in his own words - what he experienced was very far from what could be remotely described as real? That's the confusing part, Emily. Levitation/has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying? https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/63670
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count Sat 29-Mar-14 00:15:06 UTC
On 03/29/2014 06:52 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: On 3/28/2014 11:02 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: Whew, just under the non-existent wire. Why am I carrying all the heavy weight around here? I think I will go to a mall today and snap a photo. And why would people need to post more when we have GrafittiSwami spamming the group?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
Oh, and here we have an outright lie from Share. She's apparently so freaked that she can't even read what she herself wrote, so she just denies reflexively that she said what she did. Keep at it, Share. Keep adding to your dodgy dossier for everyone to see. Duh, Judy! It's not mind reading when your words are right here to see and read. Nor is it mind reading when I ask you what use of we means?! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 11:44 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Share, I've told you before, your mind-reading abilities are not up to snuff. (And you're a hypocrite to boot, because you chide others for mind-reading as if you never did it yourself.) We in this case refers to FFLers who get into discussions with you that involve some element of controversy. But I don't believe you really needed me to tell you that. In fact, your response here exemplifies many of the points I just made about your general dishonesty. Judy, now you're sounding down right looney to me! For example, who is this we you're pretending speak for? Maybe it's the royal we. MPD we? And I would think that in a yahoo group there are just a few ways to deal with another poster. In fact, given your negative opinion of me, I'm surprised that you continue to engage with me at all, often even butting into my exchanges with others to do so! And I have no idea what's brought on this latest spate from you. Except that you called me dishonest yesterday about the consistency quote and I explained that it was an honest mistake. And you did not reply to that. So I guess you're feeling embarrassed and guilty and this is why you're so upset today... On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:55 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: We know better how to deal with you when we know what drives you. We don't expect you to behave like a normal person who doesn't stand on their head to avoid reality, who doesn't think it's fun to mislead and obfuscate and be disingenuous and lie outright the way you do. Why do we all need to understand your opinion, Judy?! And even if we do, what then?! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:28 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: What we all need to understand about Share is that for her, avoiding acknowledging reality is a WIN; that's what she enjoys. It makes her feel SMART to mislead, to be disingenuous, to twist words, to obfuscate, even to lie outright. What she doesn't realize is that she's not very good at it, so it actually makes her look DUMB because what she's doing is so obvious. Ann, I said it was an interesting idea. That's not dismissing. I said I didn't agree. That's not dismissing either. More importantly, since it wasn't what you meant, that idea wasn't my focus. BTW, I also don't agree that it's a straightforward idea as you say. Emily, it's interesting that you say I'm using Apple because I'm communicating with people who are using Apple. Interesting but I don't agree. Also, I enjoy learning new stuff like that there are Apple stores and genius bars. As for uncomfortable feelings...tap, tap, tap... Hmm, interesting interpretation by Emily and one I had not thought of as a possibility when I conjectured that Sharon did not use an Apple computer. See, this is what I like about different people contributing to a thought or a conversation - they can bring to it all sorts of new dimensions and ideas. Now, what is also fascinating is to see Sharon dismiss, out of hand, the idea that she is using an Apple by reading and responding to posts made by Apple computers. On one level, of course she is using or, alternatively, utilizing the technology of an Apple because if it weren't for that type of computer Ann's or Emily's posts would not be able to be perceived here. It seems as if you, Share, have perhaps not considered this idea carefully enough. Or maybe you just feel like defying Emily for her rather straightforward and, might I add, challenging theory. Isn't this fun and enlightening? On Friday, March 28, 2014 6:22 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Ha ha ha. Blah, blah, blah. What Share, *what* is an interesting perspective? The fact that you do reduce things to right and wrong? Try this on for interesting. Maybe you really *did* take the tiniest, barely noticeable, exception to the fact that Ann and I were teasing you about not knowing that Apple has stores and genius bars, but you didn't want to admit it (that would require admitting to a possibly uncomfortable feeling), so, instead, you denied it and told her she was wrong. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, that's a very interesting perspective. On Friday, March 28, 2014 1:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: That's not the point Share. How do you know that you do not use Apple computers is a *true* statement? Depends on how you define the word use maybe?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count Sat 29-Mar-14 00:15:06 UTC
Why would it matter? Most all of them are at least former practitioners or even teachers. On 03/29/2014 07:58 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: *So, how many of these 33 posters publishing on FFL are currently regular practitioners of a transcending meditation?* *Just wondering,* *-Buck* * * Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): 03/22/14 00:00:00 End Date (UTC): 03/29/14 00:00:00 1003 messages as of (UTC) 03/28/14 23:49:55 169 Richard J. Williams 104 authfriend 100 Share Long 67 steve.sundur 65 TurquoiseBee 63 Michael Jackson 54 salyavin808 49 awoelflebater 40 LEnglish5 40 Bhairitu 37 doctordumbass 35 nablusoss1008 29 dhamiltony2k5 27 emilymaenot 26 anartaxius 19 jr_esq 19 Pundit Sir 18 Mike Dixon 6 Rick Archer 5 cardemaister 4 turquoiseb 4 merudanda 4 emptybill 4 Dick Mays 3 j_alexander_stanley 2 yifuxero 2 geezerfreak 2 feste37 2 Duveyoung 1 wgm4u 1 ultrarishi 1 s3raphita 1 Free N. Flourishing Posters: 33 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 http://www.worldtimezone.com .
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
As you know, Share, nothing Barry said applies. Keep it coming. More dishonesty, please. (But I don't really need to ask, do I?) Ok, Judy, then I hope you get rid of your tapeworms sooner rather than later. On Saturday, March 29, 2014 1:29 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: No, it doesn't, and furthermore, you know it doesn't. More dishonesty. Keep at it, Share. The more you say, the more you prove what I said about you. Ok, thanks turq and Mr. Twain. Judy does claim to be an editor so I guess that explains her continual use of we when posting on FFL. On Saturday, March 29, 2014 11:43 AM, TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... wrote: From: Share Long sharelong60@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today Judy, now you're sounding down right looney to me! For example, who is this we you're pretending speak for? Maybe it's the royal we. MPD we? I shall defer to Mark Twain: Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we.'
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
On 3/29/2014 10:55 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: *We know better how to deal with you when we know what drives you. We don't expect you to behave like a normal person who doesn't stand on their head to avoid reality, who doesn't think it's fun to mislead and obfuscate and be disingenuous and lie outright the way you do.* It is kind of fun to realize that Judy has probably never used an Apple app, and to watch her mislead and obfuscate and be disingenuous and nit-picky with Share about it, when Share acts like a normal person and asks what kind of place is a Genius Bar at an Apple Store in the mall. Who wouldn't think that's fun?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Share, come on now. Why are you warning Richard about me? Why do you see an endless rabbit hole dead ahead? Give me some feedback worth something; what you've said is meaningless. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Emily, yes and yes. On Saturday, March 29, 2014 1:30 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Share, what the heck do you mean by this? Try and be clear with me. Are you warning Richard about me? Or are you alerting him to the fact he's about to step into a rabbit hole that continues down through the earth's core to the other side of the planet and the space beyond? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote : Watch out, Richard, endless rabbit hole dead ahead! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 12:56 PM, emilymaenot@... emilymaenot@... wrote: Richard, if you would stop parsing my conversation with you, you wouldn't have to keep repeating the answer I keep giving you. Do you disagree with me? Are you talking to me, or trying to have a conversation with Barry through me? IMO, it all depends on how word real is defined and within what context it is defined within. How do you define the word? Is there validity to something that feels real in the moment? Can being stuck in illusion constitute a state of reality for the person in illusion? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 12:24 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: What is confusing for you? Why did Barry feel the compulsion to tell us that DID see real levitation when it is obvious that - even in his own words - what he experienced was very far from what could be remotely described as real? That's the confusing part, Emily. Levitation/has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying? https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/63670 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/63670
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
On 3/29/2014 11:00 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Barry also thinks it's FUN to lie and mislead, etc., etc. He knows I'm neither psychotic nor a cultist; he also knows he is /vastly/ more bitchy than I am. If his family really thinks I'm a psychotic cult bitch, it's because they're so stupid they believe what he tells them. Probably nobody is dumb enough to show their friends or family all the messages they've posted to the internet, all pretty much saying the same thing since 1996; especially if your family is made up of writers. It would be kind of embarrassing if they actually found out that Barry has posted over 50,000 messages to a discussion board dedicated to yogic flying. Go figure. They'd probably just shake their heads and conclude that this guy is real a nut case. LoL! I think my family kinda nailed it. Once you understand that she's a psychotic cult bitch, what more is there to learn?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
Richard, that is not what Share asked. And nobody said it wasn't fun. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 10:55 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: We know better how to deal with you when we know what drives you. We don't expect you to behave like a normal person who doesn't stand on their head to avoid reality, who doesn't think it's fun to mislead and obfuscate and be disingenuous and lie outright the way you do. It is kind of fun to realize that Judy has probably never used an Apple app, and to watch her mislead and obfuscate and be disingenuous and nit-picky with Share about it, when Share acts like a normal person and asks what kind of place is a Genius Bar at an Apple Store in the mall. Who wouldn't think that's fun?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
On 3/29/2014 11:14 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: *As Barry knows, it's nowhere near accurate.* It would be accurate to say that Barry owns an iPhone. So, I wonder if he's visited the Apple Store in Amsterdam - it's supposed to be the largest one on the planet- I would like to see it. I've always been fond of Apple products, especially after I heard that Steve Jobs learned TM at Reed College in Oregon.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
Re: a discussion board dedicated to yogic flying. Richard, maybe you ought to explore the value of sitting still with no thoughts and determine if there is a purpose for yourself. You are sounding confused as to the purpose of this discussion board. And at close to, or over, 200 posts a week, to this forum alone you clearly have more thoughts than you can deal with. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 11:00 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Barry also thinks it's FUN to lie and mislead, etc., etc. He knows I'm neither psychotic nor a cultist; he also knows he is vastly more bitchy than I am. If his family really thinks I'm a psychotic cult bitch, it's because they're so stupid they believe what he tells them. Probably nobody is dumb enough to show their friends or family all the messages they've posted to the internet, all pretty much saying the same thing since 1996; especially if your family is made up of writers. It would be kind of embarrassing if they actually found out that Barry has posted over 50,000 messages to a discussion board dedicated to yogic flying. Go figure. They'd probably just shake their heads and conclude that this guy is real a nut case. LoL! I think my family kinda nailed it. Once you understand that she's a psychotic cult bitch, what more is there to learn?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
On 3/29/2014 12:36 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: Why are you asking all these questions here on FFL years after Fred is dead? Why do you want to know? Why don't you post to a Rama site? Why are you so obsessed with Fred? Well, I guess I'm just curious why Barry is a True Believer, but at the same time he puts everyone else down for being a TB. Sometimes Barry doesn't even make any sense - it's like a case of cognitive dissonance. It looks like maybe, but I'm not sure, but I'm beginning to feel like, there's a brain problem situation on our hands with Barry.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Share, don't forget about this. It appears that you are scared of me, but with the kind of adoration you lavish on Richard, I would think that you would be thrilled to give him the courtesy of answering his question to you and engaging in a meaningful conversation about said topic. Are you able to do this with someone you actually enjoy? He does believe that this is a forum dedicated to yogic flying, after all. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, emilymaenot@... wrote : Share, do you care to answer Richard's direct question to you as stated below? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 12:24 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: The question posed was has anyone heard of anyone reaching 2nd stage flying - levitation? Are you still asking Barry or those invested in the TMSP, like Share? Why don't you ask Share? Asking anyone. Share, Judy, or anybody that knows about the program. I don't rule out levitation or becoming invisible, or even predicting the future in order to avoid the danger that lies ahead - I just want to know if anyone has experienced 2nd stage yogic flying? Is it complicated?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
Pundit Sir wrote: Today we went to this place: Share wrote: What kind of place is it, Richard? On 3/29/2014 2:10 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: Richard, that is not what Share asked. There must be some confusion - I said we went to an Apple Store in the mall to get a new battery for Rita's iPod. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/378314
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Post Count Sat 29-Mar-14 00:15:06 UTC
On 3/29/2014 1:41 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Why am I carrying all the heavy weight around here? I think I will go to a mall today and snap a photo. And why would people need to post more when we have GrafittiSwami spamming the group? So, people will have more interesting things to read when they come here instead of reading about you and Judy?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What We Did Today
No Richard, you said today we went to this place and you posted a picture. That was the first post and the one that Share replied to with what kind of a place is it, Richard? She later acknowledged she thought it was a museum. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : Pundit Sir wrote: Today we went to this place: Share wrote: What kind of place is it, Richard? On 3/29/2014 2:10 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: Richard, that is not what Share asked. There must be some confusion - I said we went to an Apple Store in the mall to get a new battery for Rita's iPod. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/378314 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/378314
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Well Richard, it *is* hard to see ourselves for who we are, is it not? Have you picked up on any of the feedback I've been giving you? Give it timeand have a pleasant tomorrow. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/29/2014 12:36 PM, emilymaenot@... mailto:emilymaenot@... wrote: Why are you asking all these questions here on FFL years after Fred is dead? Why do you want to know? Why don't you post to a Rama site? Why are you so obsessed with Fred? Well, I guess I'm just curious why Barry is a True Believer, but at the same time he puts everyone else down for being a TB. Sometimes Barry doesn't even make any sense - it's like a case of cognitive dissonance. It looks like maybe, but I'm not sure, but I'm beginning to feel like, there's a brain problem situation on our hands with Barry.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
On 3/29/2014 12:37 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: And how many years ago was that? Barry seemed to do a 180 just about the time he first got into a big argument with Judy, some time back in 1999. Ever since then, if Judy is for it, Barry is against it. But, before that, he was a TB defending Rama against accusations by Andrew Skolnick. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
On 3/29/2014 12:47 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: Re: We are thinking about buying us a little Tardis HA HA HA HA. SHARE, can you divine one of Richard's meaningful insights out of this statement of his? In some ways, things are smaller on the outside of the Tardis. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
On 3/29/2014 12:55 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: it all depends on how word real is defined and within what context it is defined within. According to Barry, the levitation was not REAL - it was a psychic siddhi-float with altered perceptions. I will also admit, for the same reasons, that there might have been some kind of psychic siddhi going on, in which people's perceptions were altered to allow them to see a phenomenon that might not have been present on a physical level. But there was never any suggestion of what was about to happen. The most he'd ever say was, Watch. He never said *what* to watch for, and levitation was only one of the siddhis he was good at, so there was no telling what, if anything, was going to happen. And yet most of us saw stuff, and everyone who saw it agreed on what was seen. - TurquoiseB
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
Richard, I admit I feel compassion for this Lenz fellow if he got into altering the perceptions of other people psychically. No wonder he ended up committing suicide. Anyway, just in case you're still wondering as Emily suggests: I have not experienced the 2nd stage of yogic flying. Go figure! On Saturday, March 29, 2014 2:45 PM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/29/2014 12:55 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote: it all depends on how word real is defined and within what context it is defined within. According to Barry, the levitation was not REAL - it was a psychic siddhi-float with altered perceptions. I will also admit, for the same reasons, that there might have been some kind of psychic siddhi going on, in which people's perceptions were altered to allow them to see a phenomenon that might not have been present on a physical level. But there was never any suggestion of what was about to happen. The most he'd ever say was, Watch. He never said *what* to watch for, and levitation was only one of the siddhis he was good at, so there was no telling what, if anything, was going to happen. And yet most of us saw stuff, and everyone who saw it agreed on what was seen. - TurquoiseB
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
On 3/29/2014 12:56 PM, Share Long wrote: Emily, Richard's main insight, imo, is that he enjoys life and doesn't take FFL arguments seriously. Share, we have to ask ourselves why somebody would want to levitate themselves up into the air in front of a group of people when everyone knows that with a Tardis, you are able to rise way up higher than just two feet, and even go forward or backwards in time.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Post Count Fri 21-Mar-14 00:15:03 UTC
On 3/29/2014 12:58 PM, Share Long wrote: Watch out, Richard, endless rabbit hole dead ahead! Yes, I think maybe, but I'm not sure, but it's starting to look like, we've got a brain problem situation on our hands.
[FairfieldLife] That Time is Gone
The dB's That Time Is Gone - Peter Holsapple, vocals and guitar http://youtu.be/f9CwLD1Yrvo [image: Inline image 1] Recorded live in 2012 in Austin, Texas at Threadgill's during the Music Fog Marathon. MusicFog review: http://musicfog.com/home/2012/6/12/the-dbs-that-time-is-gone.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: That Time is Gone
Nice Richard, best post of the last several weeks from you. Love the lyrics. Shareand what you fear you might become is.you better wake up, wake up, wake up, that time is here. Feel the fear Share...don't get distractedfeel ittap it out, baby, tap it out. And then, get back to me on why you need to warn Richard about me. I'll listen, I will. Rainbows and bunnies to you, Em. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : The dB's That Time Is Gone - Peter Holsapple, vocals and guitar http://youtu.be/f9CwLD1Yrvo http://youtu.be/f9CwLD1Yrvo Recorded live in 2012 in Austin, Texas at Threadgill's during the Music Fog Marathon. MusicFog review: http://musicfog.com/home/2012/6/12/the-dbs-that-time-is-gone.html http://musicfog.com/home/2012/6/12/the-dbs-that-time-is-gone.html
[FairfieldLife] Ray Wylie Hubbard - Screw You, We're from Texas
Hey Richard, remember, I was born in Texas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-cFtSPIF4Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-cFtSPIF4Q
