Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Look Who's Meditating Now

[ditzyklanmail]

Hahaha. Sorry. Had the blueblockers on. : )






From: pranamoocher 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 29 March, 2011 11:42:15 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Look Who's Meditating Now

  
Please yellow highlight your comments since they can't easily be seen.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
>
> Thanks for posting this. 
> I was not aware of that article. 
> I wish everyone who has flaws could still be able to represent that which 
>brings 
>
> peace to mind. Russell talks about his past drug habits, etc. Susan says she 
> meditates once a day...those flaws are accepted, if you have the wallet??
> I agree with the bottom of page 2 of the  NYTIMES article, with the 
>quote"Though 
>
> it helps with publicity, the Hollywood community’s embrace of the technique 
> could in theory cheapen TM’s message, in light of that particular group’s 
> capricious spiritual tastes â€" Madonnaand the kabbalah or Tom Cruiseand 
> Scientology."
> 
> My opinion is not important, but I think the PR for the movement could use 
> some 
>
> advice from others who maybe do not have the donation pocket in their 
> control. 

> Every other word in marketing being a rock star or Hollywood name does not 
> make 
>
> me wish...wish to hear those words.  lol 
> 
> Rock stars and Hollywood, give names of idol thoughts in my head. I can't 
> help 

> but imagining a hundred years from now, a rock stars name in association with 
>TM 
>
> will become defined as one of the "founders," then a new religion would be 
> born.   I am not dissing the idea of meditation, nor am I knocking the TM 
> Movement.  The marketing seems to be taking a flaky turn?   We need 
> scientists 

> in this world. Kids that want to grow up and find solutions to make things 
> better. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, 20 March, 2011 5:09:49 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Look Who's Meditating Now
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" do.rflex@ wrote:
> >
> > Transcendental Meditation has New Devotees
> > 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/fashion/20TM.html?_r=1 
> 
> 
> Two photos are worth twenty thousand words.  :-)
>

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Look Who's Meditating Now

[ditzyklanmail]

Thanks for posting this. 
I was not aware of that article. 
I wish everyone who has flaws could still be able to represent that which 
brings 
peace to mind. Russell talks about his past drug habits, etc. Susan says she 
meditates once a day...those flaws are accepted, if you have the wallet??
I agree with the bottom of page 2 of the  NYTIMES article, with the 
quote"Though 
it helps with publicity, the Hollywood community’s embrace of the technique 
could in theory cheapen TM’s message, in light of that particular group’s 
capricious spiritual tastes — Madonnaand the kabbalah or Tom Cruiseand 
Scientology."

My opinion is not important, but I think the PR for the movement could use some 
advice from others who maybe do not have the donation pocket in their control. 
Every other word in marketing being a rock star or Hollywood name does not make 
me wish...wish to hear those words.  lol 

Rock stars and Hollywood, give names of idol thoughts in my head. I can't help 
but imagining a hundred years from now, a rock stars name in association with 
TM 
will become defined as one of the "founders," then a new religion would be 
born.   I am not dissing the idea of meditation, nor am I knocking the TM 
Movement.  The marketing seems to be taking a flaky turn?   We need scientists 
in this world. Kids that want to grow up and find solutions to make things 
better. 








From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 20 March, 2011 5:09:49 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Look Who's Meditating Now

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> Transcendental Meditation has New Devotees
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/fashion/20TM.html?_r=1 


Two photos are worth twenty thousand words.  :-)






 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MUM Q&A session on "David Wants to Fly" on YouTube

[ditzyklanmail]

Pulled me out of lurking with LOL!






From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 25 March, 2011 10:58:01 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: MUM Q&A session on "David Wants to Fly" on YouTube

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> > On Behalf Of wayback71
> > 
> > Bobby Roth does a really fine job in the question and answer 
> > session. I watched a few - and he does avoid some difficult 
> > issues, but he is being who he is - a true devotee. And he 
> > is also vey smart. 
> 
> He also has a very good heart. The guy really is full of love.

If only he weren't starting to look so much like the 
crazy preacher from "Poltergeist." Not a good look
for a P.R. guy.  :-)

 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] With TM there's no need to suffer, says film director Martin Scorsese

[ditzyklanmail]

I would like to comment, but I shall not.Must be my quickened evolutionary 
tract that causes all these things to occur, which are border line suffering. 
lol






From: Bhairitu 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 17 January, 2011 12:09:48 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] With TM there's no need to suffer, says film 
director Martin Scorsese

  

On 01/16/2011 12:57 PM, merlin wrote:
>
>
>
>
> With TM there's no need to suffer,
> 
> says Hollywood film director Martin Scorsese.
> 
> http://www.globalgoodnews.com/health-news-a.html?art=12948564553725902

So you've not had any suffering since starting TM?


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Machete, the review (sorta)

[ditzyklanmail]

Can't wait to see it!






From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 7 September, 2010 4:28:06 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Machete, the review (sorta)

  
I found a good, clean copy of Robert Rodriguez's "Machete"
and watched it last night, so I can finally comment on some
of the sturm und drung that is going on about it. The sturm
und drung is silly; it's just a fuckin' movie, and a 'homage'
movie at that, one that is supposed to be an example of the
Grindhouse movie tradition. People should lighten the fuck up.

It's important to remember the *history* of this film when
trying to claim it's springboarding off of current events and
trying to portray a modern "race war" between Mexicans and
white-skinned 'Mericans. Rodriguez wrote the original script
for "Machete" back in 1993, just after writing "Desperado,"
so it's anything but based on current events and the Arizona
race wars. 

It's also a movie that was made based on *fans asking him to
make it*. For the "Grindhouse" tribute double feature created
by Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino, Robert resurrected the
old script and turned it into one of the "trailers" he put
between the two features in that film. The "Machete" trailer
got better reviews and more fan feedback than "Grindhouse"
itself, so he went ahead and made the movie, starring his
old friends Danny Trejo and Cheech Marin, with whom he had
shot the original fake "trailer."

Along the way he added a few other actors. Little ones, like
Robert De Niro (playing the insane Senator running for office
on a "Send 'em back to Mexico" ticket), Don Johnson (who is
running a vigilante army based on the "Just shoot 'em" ticket),
Michele Rodriguez (no relation, as an activist running a 
network to help illegal immigrants), Jessica Alba (as an INS
agent torn between trying to enforce the law and being obiously
of Mexican heritage herself), Steven Seagal (looking fat and
old and weird as a Mexican drug kingpin), Cheech (as a gun-
toting priest), Jeff Fahey (as the Senator's right-hand man 
who is trying to get him elected, and who secretly has the 
hots for his own daughter), and Lindsay Lohan (as the lusted-
after daughter). 

All in all, a formidable cast. And the result is great fun,
if you don't mind violence in your movies. "Machete" is violent
to the max. Suffice it to say that when some doctor mentions
in an offhand way that the human intestine is 60 feet long
you are being set up for seeing that demonstrated hilariously
a short while later. :-) "Machete" is also very funny, if you
are a film buff and know the things it's poking fun at in a 
'homage' sort of way. Even the cutting of the film is homage,
in that it jumps and has "bad edits" the same way one of the
original Grindhouse films would have been after being on the
circuit many years and being badly repaired by projectionists
in one Grindhouse theater after another.

Me, I love Robert Rodriguez and consider him one of cinema's
enfant terribles, so I kinda like this movie. It's not one
of his best, but it's entertaining. What it *isn't* is an
attempt to start a "race war." That's just paranoid white
people talking, people who are terrified when they see the
Mexicans onscreen kicking ass instead of getting their
asses kicked by whiteys like them.

"Machete" is supposed to be FUN, in a violent, film history
sorta way. It's a *Grindhouse* movie, ferchissakes. They were
all about violence, done on a low budget and with unknown
actors. Robert just made one with a slightly bigger budget
(while using a filming and editing style that hides that
big budget and makes it look like one of the cheapo flicks
he's doing tribute to) using big name stars. 

My favorite moment? Danny Trejo (the real star of this film,
and a formidable presence, as he always is) being told by 
one of the babes that he could have just texted her instead
of trying to call her directly. He looks at her like the
tough ex-Federale he is and snarls, "Machete don't text."

Says it all. Machete kicks ass. Texting is for pussies.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Happy Birthday FFL

[ditzyklanmail]

Happy Birthday FFL!  Maybe this bring life to FF!






From: Rick Archer 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 5 September, 2010 10:18:10 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Happy Birthday FFL

  
Today is our 9th birthday. 255,824 posts.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A great opportunity for service

[ditzyklanmail]

Turq,

All is fair. I can not disagree with your comments, this time. LOL
You have good focus. I do like when Stein puts you in your place. All is fun. 
Where is Stein?   You two should marry. : )

I appreciate you taking time to dissect the below.   
I just keep wondering if there was/is a better way for the TMO to forward 
itself. ... wait, I think you gave an intelligent answer to that in a previous 
post, in a previous thread.  

 In the TMO, there is rather a huge focus on the faces who make 
accomplishments, 
commercially and I am not one to really do something just because a figure head 
did or does. That is a teenager's way of thinking. lol I like teenagers, when 
they are teenagers in their teens. lol. When it carries on to superficial 
adults, I tend to not wish to go that route. 


I wish not to bash you Turq. 
  Nabby, well, it goes both ways with him. Jar Jar Binks is easy to pick on. :








From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 5 September, 2010 7:04:09 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A great opportunity for service

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
>
> Dear Turq,
> 
> His work is interesting. Compliments to the Lynch man for wanting 
> to share art illuminating the depth of ignorance. 

An interesting phrase, one I cannot disagree with.
The word "Why?" keeps popping into my head, but
the phrase is accurate.

> Why the TMO embraces him, I do question. 
> Does anyone in Fairfield dive their talents into dark art and 
> are not embraced or rather discouraged from dark art because 
> it is an unenlightened way of thinking? 

I do not live there and cannot say what happens
in Fairfield. In general, I think that there is
a certain reverence for the famous in TM circles,
and I think it's fair to say that this came from
Maharishi. 

He was attracted to fame like a moth to a flame,
and liked to surround himself with famous faces.
It didn't seem to matter what the person did to
become famous, only that he was famous. 

>  I would like to know why the double standard, or why it 
> appears that way.  Is it because of donations that are 
> gathered? 

These days, very possibly. For Maharishi himself,
in all honesty I think he was attracted more to 
the fame than the money. The money just came *with*
the famous people, and to him as a result of being
photographed with them.

> This topic, I am only wanting answers to what comes naturally 
> to question. Deep rest brings more creativity as it is said, 
> these email groups are creative, so no one is wrong to 
> display opinion. 

Except when someone displays an opinion that pushes
buttons. Then we need our oracles to tell us which
opinion is right and which is wrong. :-)

> This email is not attempting to bash the TMO nor David Lynch. 

This reply is not attempting to bash the TMO, David
Lynch, ditzyklanmail, or anyone else on this forum. 
I will take the opportunity, however, to bash Stanley 
Weisenbaum, who stole my girlfriend in seventh grade. 
Guy was a shithead.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A great opportunity for service

[ditzyklanmail]

LOL





From: Bhairitu 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 4 September, 2010 11:26:37 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A great opportunity for service

  
TurquoiseB wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
> 
>> Off the topic of spiritual quest. This is not a trick question 
>> to tie you down on the tracks. Turq, you do like David Lynch 
>> films as an artist, correct?
>> 
>
> I'm actually not a big fan. I liked his Dune
> because he brought a good "dark side" to the
> set design and some of the darker characters.
> I thought "Blue Velvet" was interesting, but
> too weird for me. Go figure. :-)
>
> I thought Mulholland Drive was overrated, him
> *trying* to be enigmatic and mysterious, as
> opposed to really being those things. Saw long
> outtakes from Inland Empire and decided not to
> bother, even though it starred one of my faves,
> Laura Dern. 
>
> Never encountered him in the TMO, so I really
> have no personal feelings about him. As a film-
> maker I think he's the type of director who 
> has discovered that the weirder and less under-
> standable he makes his movies, the better they
> will be reviewed. A pleasant exception to this
> was The Straight Story, which was just that.
>
> I respect his naive view of both Maharishi and
> what he hopes to do with his project, and think
> he's well-meaning, but yes, I think he's naive. 
>
> Can't imagine why you thought that mattered,
> but I guess you'll say. If you do like his work,
> explain this upcoming project to me, based on 
> its IMDB page. I can't make heads nor tails of 
> it myself. :-)
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1712185/

So how many other than me saw the Lynch documentary (the 2007 one)?  No 
one else has commented.   Sal was going to watch it as she finally found 
it on Netflix WI and I know a lot more here use that streaming service. 
Have you seen it by the "eyepatch service"?  I think you would find it 
amusing.  I find it interesting how many quirky people (which I'm fine 
with because they're artists) become poster children for the TM 
industry.  The price and that is enough to keep the general public well 
at bay.  And I have a suspicion that if Nabby ever visited Fairfield he 
would not be allowed into the dome, especially with his Benjamin Creme 
t-shirt.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A great opportunity for service

[ditzyklanmail]

Dear Turq,

Reasonable non prejudice answer. : )
Good opinion of his movies.  Fair. 
Inland Empire takes one down a road of complete agony that appears to never 
stop, until the credits. Must be the intent.
Upcoming work in china. your below link from  IMDB. Must be someone willing to 
finance?
His work is interesting. Compliments to the Lynch man for wanting  to share art 
illuminating the depth of ignorance.Why the TMO embraces him, I do 
question. 
Does anyone in Fairfield dive their talents into dark art and are not embraced 
or rather discouraged from dark art because it is an unenlightened way of 
thinking?  

 I would like to know why the double standard, or why it appears that way.  Is 
it because of donations that are gathered? 

This topic, I am only wanting answers to what comes naturally to question. Deep 
rest brings more creativity as it is said, these email groups are creative, so 
no one is wrong to display opinion.   

This email is not attempting to bash the TMO nor David Lynch.  
 I appreciate the Turqs value in this thread.  Thank you.
 








From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 4 September, 2010 10:03:30 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A great opportunity for service

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
>
> Off the topic of spiritual quest. This is not a trick question 
> to tie you down on the tracks. Turq, you do like David Lynch 
> films as an artist, correct?

I'm actually not a big fan. I liked his Dune
because he brought a good "dark side" to the
set design and some of the darker characters.
I thought "Blue Velvet" was interesting, but
too weird for me. Go figure. :-)

I thought Mulholland Drive was overrated, him
*trying* to be enigmatic and mysterious, as
opposed to really being those things. Saw long
outtakes from Inland Empire and decided not to
bother, even though it starred one of my faves,
Laura Dern. 

Never encountered him in the TMO, so I really
have no personal feelings about him. As a film-
maker I think he's the type of director who 
has discovered that the weirder and less under-
standable he makes his movies, the better they
will be reviewed. A pleasant exception to this
was The Straight Story, which was just that.

I respect his naive view of both Maharishi and
what he hopes to do with his project, and think
he's well-meaning, but yes, I think he's naive. 

Can't imagine why you thought that mattered,
but I guess you'll say. If you do like his work,
explain this upcoming project to me, based on 
its IMDB page. I can't make heads nor tails of 
it myself. :-)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1712185/


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A great opportunity for service

[ditzyklanmail]

This thread is very interesting.  I appreciate the comments as it is 
stimulating 
my perception of idols. Please continue.





From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 4 September, 2010 4:58:58 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A great opportunity for service

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> > >
> > > Invite David Lynch to your country
> > 
> > And ask him to stay there.
> 
> why, do you hate him because he's not a Buddhist or perhaps 
> because he brings hope. I can see why buddhists dislike his 
> activity since he brings a hope for the future in a way 
> nobody's like yourself or buddhism are not able to do.
> 
> http://dlf.tv/2009/david-lynch/
> http://dlf.tv/2009/sbwoods/

This is so classic that it really must be commented on. :-)

What happened here is that I made a joke. Nabby, who
positions himself as an On The Program TMer, saw it as
hatred, and then used it as a springboard for his own
hatred of Buddhists.

Think of Nabby as the *result* of David Lynch's efforts
"hope for the future." He's been practicing TM -- the
thing that David Lynch is helping to sell -- for maybe
30 years. He's told us over and over how "in" he is with
the TM momvement. He's yer classic TM True Believer. So
in a very real sense Nabby is the "end product" of the
thing that David Lynch is selling, and that Nabby wants
you to help him sell. 

What are some of the *qualities* of that end product 
(the results of practicing TM), as personified by Nabby?

* The tendency to perceive a joke -- making fun of
him and his flamboyantly clueless way of writing, 
not David Lynch -- as hatred.

* The tendency to believe that the hatred he imagines
being aimed at TM, Maharishi, and folks like David 
Lynch is coming not from an individual but from a 
*group*. In this case, Buddhists; in previous posts,
the CIA. In other words, raving paranoia. 

* The tendency to deride people he doesn't like as
"nobody's" (sic) while getting an obvious stiffy for
celebrities like David Lynch.

Wanna become like Nabby? Learn TM.

Wanna help others become like Nabby? Invite David
Lynch to your country to help sell TM. 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] A great opportunity for service

[ditzyklanmail]

Off the topic of spiritual quest. This is not a trick question to tie you down 
on the tracks.
Turq, you do like David Lynch films as an artist, correct?






From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 4 September, 2010 3:35:41 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] A great opportunity for service

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> Invite David Lynch to your country

And ask him to stay there.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: King Tony Cometh

[ditzyklanmail]

LOL





From: Joe 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 1 September, 2010 2:26:15 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: King Tony Cometh

  

Bravo Curtis! You gotta write a book dude: "The King Tony Kronicles-The Rise of 
Raja-ism". I'd stand in line to buy it!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 31, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Rick Archer wrote:
> > > 
> > > King Tony, along with his wife and kids, is coming to Fairfield. The 
>Mansion, which was purchased for $1 million years ago for him to live in (he 
>lived there a few days) is being renovated. Bevan, Neil Paterson, and other 
>bigwigs are also coming to stay there. How long they'll stay I don't know.
> > 
> > One wonders if any of the commoners will get to see 
> > the Royal Family up close...
> > Sal
> 
> Wizzing by in a beige convertible perhaps?  All giving the side to side hand 
>wave popular with the British Royals and beauty queen winners?  Fortunately I 
>have the car bugged...
> 
> "Tony, Tony, Tony" rasped Mrs. Nader, her wavy chestnut hair and multicolored 
>scarf trailing behind her in their beige Austin Martin convertible.  Two kids 
>sit strapped into car seats riveted by the dancing prince and princess on the 
>built-in DVD screen.  Maybe Ariel, maybe that other one.
> 
> "My little boy with his little crown playing dress up like one of the 
> Parisian 
>couture boys who used to fawn over me whenever I shopped on Rue Ampère.  Those 
>days are long gone now that we are here in this dust bowl."  She brushes off 
>the 
>shoulder of her silver metallic lame jacket in disgust. "Merde" she hisses for 
>the hundredth time today. "I am coated in the dust of pig shit and it will 
>never 
>come out of my D and G (which she pronounces Day and jay).
> 
> "What are you saying dear?" Tony realizes he has not been pretending to 
listen.
> 
> "Dolce and Gabbana you twit.  You haven't heard a word I've said have you."
> 
> Tony "Of course I have, something about missing your fag hag buddies in Paris 
>right?"
> 
> "Don't even start with me.  What else was I supposed to do while you sit in 
>your room with your eyes closed?  Meditating on what?  What is so wonderful 
>behind your eye lids that you have to avoid your family for most of the day?" 
>She readjusts her dress, smoothing out the multicolored fabric with perfectly 
>manicured hands.  Her nails are modestly short, just beyond her finger tips, 
>but 
>the rich maroon color is flawless.  The thought floats through her mind that 
>she 
>will not be able to find anyone like her beloved Parisian nail girl Tai May 
>here 
>to keep them in this condition. In Iowa they probably only stock nail polish 
>with sparkles, the kind little girls, strippers and pop stars on coke wear, 
>with 
>names like "Totally Awesome" instead of color shades.
> 
> Tony let's his smile drop a bit while he attempts to appease his wife.  After 
>all, he has gotten his way against all odds.  He has brought his whole family 
>to 
>Iowa where he is the King.  This was not how he was viewed in Paris outside 
>their somewhat dingy TM center that smelled of curry like a Pakistani take-out 
>joint all the time.  In the past initiation days would break up the baked-in 
>smell with sandalwood but it has been quite a while since they had those kinds 
>of initiation numbers through the center.  Now roasted cumin seeds and 
>asafoetida had won. Tony's wife had refused to go with him after she found out 
>to her horror that the smell clung to her clothes and everything needed two 
>trips to the dry cleaner to get what she called "that cab driver smell" out of 
>her clothes. 
>
> 
> "Cheer up dear, this weekend we are going to a grand celebration for my 
> return 
>and you can dress up the way you like. Why don't you wear that gorgeous dress 
>we 
>bought just before leaving Paris?  You know the Orange one?"   Tony winced a 
>bit 
>as he remembered his shock at getting the bill for his bribe to smooth over 
>his 
>wife's displeasure at leaving for Iowa.  Little did he know that this was only 
>the fist of four dresses that she had arranged to have shipped to her in Iowa. 
> 
>The matching shoes alone equaled the price of that one dress.  She would not 
>be 
>bought off so cheaply!
> 
> The flamboyant shop owner Toulouse was more than happy to be her accomplice, 
>holding her husband's credit card number for future purchases.  "Just a text 
>or 
>a tweet Daling and I will rush you a care package from your favorite 
>designers" he cooed the last time he saw her.  It was not her ass that he 
>followed with his eyes as the King and Queen of fantasy land walked out the 
>door. Toulouse had heard rumors about them being some type of royalty but he 
>had 
>automatically assumed it was a reference to role reversal sex play.  His 
>gaydar 
>had gone off like a fire alarm when he met Tony and he secretly wondered i

[FairfieldLife] Polanski

[ditzyklanmail]

Turqkey,
I was referring to Polanski. 
: )

Re: [FairfieldLife] Meditation isn't the only thing rewiring your brain

[ditzyklanmail]

Hahahahahha.   My brain never felt better!





From: Bhairitu 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 20 August, 2010 11:56:26 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Meditation isn't the only thing rewiring your brain

  
The Internet is also doing it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/20/internet-altering-your-mind


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Hmmmmmmm

[ditzyklanmail]

but he did rape a girl, regardless. 






From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 21 August, 2010 9:10:49 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Hmmm

  
Roman Polanski, about to release a film that blows the 
whistle on CIA "sleeper agent" recruitment. What to do?
Stir up an old rape case involving him. The American 
public will then think "Rapist!" and never see the 
film we want them not to see.

Julien Assange, whose website Wikileaks has announced that
it is about to release another 15,000 classified documents
on America's war in Afghanistan. What to do? Find someone
in the Swedish government to accuse him of rape, and leak 
the supposed story in a low-rent tabloid called Expressen. 
The American public will then think "Rapist!" and never 
read the documents we don't want them to read.

Conspiracy theory or Hey-it-worked-once-why-not-try-it-again? 
Your call.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/21/julian-assange-rape-case-_n_690009.html


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] A negativity about Buddhism that even Vaj cannot naysay.

[ditzyklanmail]

lol





From: Peter 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 20 August, 2010 5:45:34 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] A negativity about Buddhism that even Vaj cannot 
naysay.

  
Yes, after I saw this I ran out and killed myself. I feel much better now!

--- On Fri, 8/20/10, Duveyoung  wrote:

> From: Duveyoung 
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] A negativity about Buddhism that even Vaj cannot 
>naysay.
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, August 20, 2010, 6:09 PM
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8649250863235826256#
> 
> The above link takes you to the first part of a talk. 
> It's one hour long but the guy is so compelling -- and funny
> too -- that the cost of time is not burdensome.
> 
> Are you a civilized person? If so, it's all your fault. All
> of it. Everything odious -- yours. Here's someone asking you
> to see the wisdom of the ancients by showing the devastation
> you create by a lack of integrity. And, oh, this guy makes
> you laugh as he turns the spit with which he's impaled you
> -- and also your delusions about your lack of
> culpability.  This one video pulls the rug out from
> under virtual every urgency paraded here at FFL.
> 
> Edg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 
> 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Steep Drop in US Circumcisions

[ditzyklanmail]

LOL





From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 20 August, 2010 7:17:00 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Steep Drop in US Circumcisions

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

> How important do their dicks have to *BE* to some
> guys to get them to obsess on them this much?

Says Barry, in his fourth post on the topic, with
one more (at least) to come...


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis

[ditzyklanmail]

From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 9 August, 2010 7:37:23 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Response to Curtis

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> You forgot to add, "I am no longer willing to embarrass
> myself in public the way I used to do by claiming that
> I could possibly know that 'TM is the best.' So instead
> I'm going to try to taunt Barry into arguing about what
> I want him to argue about, so I can slink away and no
> one will notice that I have the spine of a jellyfish."

Translation:

"I embarrassed--nay, irretrievably humiliated--myself
in public twice last week:

"First with my patently idiotic claim that she's been
in a TMO 'cocoon' since she learned TM and thus wasn't
aware of MMY's reputation among non-TMers as a
'charlatan'--when everybody knows *I* know that isn't
true, because she and I were both on alt.m.t, where
MMY was routinely denounced as such starting in 1995.

"And second, with my insanely STOPID attempt to
misrepresent her exchange with Curtis, which was so
egregiously factually false Curtis himself had to step
in and confirm what actually took place.

"So having exposed *myself* as a charlatan and a liar,
it's crucially important that I distract everybody by
trying to pin something on her, or I'll look like a
spineless jellyfish for not being able to own up to
what I've done and what it says about me."

Here's the deal, Barry: Man up. Take responsibility
for once and acknowledge how badly you fouled up in
those two instances (not that they're the only two,
simply the most recent and among the most foolish of
your attempts to Get Judy--be grateful I don't demand
you admit to all of them), and I'll be happy to 
repeat my explanation for why I say TM is the most
efficient technique currently easily available to
householders for development of consciousness.

Oh, and two other conditions:

First, you may not attribute the quote "TM is best" to
me. Once you've fulfilled the first requirement and ask
me to comply with my end of the deal, you are to
attribute to me only my exact phrasing above as the
view you want me to explain.

Second, if you try this again--

> Personally I don't think you'll do it. You'll dodge and
> weave and try to get me and others to focus on irrelevancies,
> all so that you don't have to try to defend the indefensible.
> In other words, you'll do what you always do and posture
> and distract, while running away from the challenge or the
> actual issue.

--if you attempt to paint the bloopers I'm requiring
that you admit to as "irrelevancies," or add *any*
more lies to the mountain of 'em you've already built,
the deal is off. We're either going to have an honest
exchange for once or none at all.

Got it?

Think of this as a learning experience, a karmic
lesson you've attempted to avoid for far too long, an 
opportunity to take the first step on the long path
of redemption. Bear in mind that if you try to slough
it off as you usually do, you'll have to do so very
publicly. Don't make it any more difficult for yourself
than you already have. And I *guarantee* you, you'll
feel better once you've met the challenge and gotten
the top two boulders in your mountain of lies off your
chest.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

[ditzyklanmail]

From: Mike Dixon 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 27 July, 2010 8:33:03 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

  






 From: feste37 
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tue, July 27, 2010 5:39:53 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

  


Perhaps you could tell me exactly where in "Obamacare" it says that people in 
their sixties are "too old" for multiple heart bypass surgery. 


--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> Now picture this. You're in your sixties and in fairly good health except you 
> need a multiple heart bypass and under Obamacare you are considered too old 
> for 
>
> such care and are offered Plavix or just aspirin as your only option. You 
> want 

> to appeal this decision but you have to go to somebody who hasn't had their 
> *epiphany* yet. You just might get so pissed that you drop dead of a heart 
> attack on the spot! Nobody should have to deal with a government bureaucrat 
> in 
>a 
>
> life and death situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  _ _ __
> From: ditzyklanmail 
> To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 7:25:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?
> 
> Â  
> If I was a public servant. Working, paid for by taxpayer dollars, in a 
> government agency. Any person who has agony, complaint, distress and comes to 
>me 
>
> in my position, even if rude, obnoxious, acting superior as they present 
> their 

> strife, as I am a public servant as I work for the people of the country I 
>live, 
>
> I would not serve the obnoxious person less than anyone else. 
> 
> If in my own business, I may tell a person to go to another, but then again 
> as 

> they say, "the customer is always  right."
> People are taught to go to the government for help, if there is no other help 
> available?
> When our farmers are suffering, anger will of course come forth. Unless we 
> live 
>
> in India, then maybe they commit suicide and just step out of the way of life?
> 
> Any agency that harnesses laws to the point of extinction of a livelihood, 
> that 
>
> agency does it really have a purpose anymore? 
> 
> Is this really about racism or about government getting so large that a 
> farmer 

> has to now leave his farm to attempt to get help from a government agency 
> instead of growing his crops?? or keeping his farm? 
> 
> Look past the people involved and ask why this type of thing is happening to 
> people trying to make a living from their own hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  _ _ __
> From:  authfriend 
> To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sat, 24 July, 2010 9:43:45 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?
> 
> Â  
> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
> >
> > See 17:28 in video.
> 
> The only audience response at 17:28 is a chuckle.
> There are no "cheers," no "applause" anywhere in
> the portion of the address where she talks about
> the farmer.
> 
> And in any case, they aren't chuckles of approval
> of racism, they're chuckles of sympathy at her
> conflict, of understanding how she felt. OF
> COURSE she wasn't going to feel like going out of
> her way to help the farmer when he'd been acting
> so superior.
> 
> Her tone of voice at that point is wry and self-
> mocking, strongly suggesting  that *she* didn't
> approve of having had the feeling she described.
> 
> And when she goes on to recount her epiphany--
> 
> "Working with him made me see that it's really
> about those who have versus those who haven't.
> They could be black, they could be white, they
> could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then
> that I needed to help poor people--those who
> don't have access the way others have."
> 
> --you can hear people in the audience going, 
> "Mm-hm," "That's right, that's right." The
> audience *does* approve of her recognition that
> it isn't about race, it's about being poor.
> 
> And as to Breitbart's revised charge that the
> audience didn't know she was going to describe
> an epiphany, and that therefore they were
> approving of her pre-epiphany racism not 
> realizing she was going to end up  renouncing
> it, here's how she introduced the story about
> the farmer:
> 
> -
> SHERROD: God is good. I can tell you that. When I
> made that commitment, I was makin

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

[ditzyklanmail]

Driving past a tea party sign holding rally on a side of a road, I saw people 
with darker skin than others holding signs along the same thought.  People of 
African descent along with European descent appearances.  All Humans. 







From: Mike Dixon 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 27 July, 2010 8:06:37 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

  
FWIW, I have never joined a political party. Each has it's *Yin and Yang*. I 
have attended 4 Tea Party rallies, 2 in Houston, 1 in College Station and 1 in 
Austin, to see what they represented. Never saw one sign or heard one word 
attacking anybody's race, religion or heritage. The overwhelming majority 
appeared to be common, middle aged, middle class people, concerned about the 
direction the country was moving in. They certainly didn't have the appearance 
of Saul Alinsky type radicals.




 From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 9:18:46 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

  
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
>
> I have not read enough on the mason dixon line dude to
> know if he supports the far right. lol.

Yeah, he's been pretty consistent about it. Not the real
nutcase fringe, but definitely in Tea Party territory.

> Labels of division I think are mentioned in the Art of War. 
> 
> We are all human. : )
> If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in 
> superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to 
> irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking 
> his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If 
> sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them.  Attack him 
> where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.
> - Sun Tzu, the Art of War 
> 
> 
> 
>  _ _ __
> From: authfriend 
> To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sat, 24 July, 2010 10:37:21 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
> >
> > It's intended to have shock value. If you can't reach out
> > and hit someone or are too cowardly to do so, just call
> > them a racist. It's usually an act of frustration and
>  > despiration, one I find laughable
> 
> FWIW, Mike, I don't think you're a racist. I think you
> often allow yourself to be misled by folks on the right,
> like Breitbart, who *are* racists.
> 
> > and means, in this case, I've won the arguement.
> 
> Not so fast. I just made a longish post--it hasn't shown 
> up yet--addressing your claims regarding Sherrod and
> Breitbart.
>



 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

[ditzyklanmail]

black and white and yellow and brown and tan and albino and pink and beige and 
jaundice and any other shade not listed of people on earth. One human race. No 
other race except human. : )





From: raunchydog 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 27 July, 2010 8:05:36 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

  
Reagan used budget cuts as an excuse to close the USDA Office of Civil Rights 
in 
1983 and scrap any attempt to redress racism against black farmers. The message 
to black folks was, you can count on Republicans to screw you. It's consistent 
with Clinton's reputation as the "first black president" that he reopened the 
USDA Office of Civil Rights in 1996. He made it possible for the Pigford case 
to 
come forward so that farmers could win Track "A" settlements for $50K or Track 
"B" for a larger amount. But true to form another Republican, Bush, spent $12 
million fighting these claims tooth and nail. 


To his credit Obama hired Tom Vilsack, a close friend of the Clinton's to head 
the USDA. Tom got $1.25 billion for Pigford II. I believe the Republicans who 
hate the idea of paying another dime to black farmers were in cahoots with 
Brietbart and FOX to railroad Pigford II and they set up Shirely Sherrod to do 
it.

Here's an interesting side story about the Vilsacks. I was a delegate for 
Hillary at the Iowa State Convention. The Obama team wanted ALL of Hillary's 
delegates to caucus for Obama at the State Convention. Tom, bless his heart, 
negotiated for Hillary's delegates to remain in her caucus at State if they 
would promise to declare for Obama at the National Convention. I talked to Tom 
about my frustration with this decision and he assured me this was the best he 
could do. I also, talked to his wife Christie, who said she too was as 
frustrated with the bullying tactics of the Obama team and wasn't going to 
stick 
around for the caucuses. She left that morning soon after I talked to her. She 
was not at all happy. That day, I saw Tom's character as a stand up guy. He 
fell 
on the sword for Obama doing what he thought best for the Democratic Party. 
Love 
Vilsacks, great people, true blue Democrats. 


Segue to last night when I listened to Mark Thompson on Sirius Left radio 
interview Shirley Sherrod. What a great lady. The right wing sure picked on the 
wrong person to cast as a racist. Idiots! I am really proud of how she has 
stood 
up for herself and how she has fought for justice for the poor and AAs her 
entire life. 


Shirley told Mark she was forced to resign by USDA Deputy Under Secretary 
Cheryl 
Cook who asked her "asked to pull over and quit." The interesting thing that 
came out of this interview was that Mark said according to his sources there 
were people on Vilsack's staff who heard about Shirley's firing on TV! His 
sources also said Rahm Emanuel was behind the hasty decision to fire her. She 
didn't confirm or deny it. If this is true, I'm not surprised that once again 
Vilsack has fallen on the sword for Obama.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/22/the-shirley-sherrod-saga-lessons-from-bureaucratic-blunders/


The right wing American Thinker raises some interesting questions designed to 
smear Sherrod further but it also sheds some light on why the Obama 
administration may have been in such a hurry to get rid of her. 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/forty_acres_a_mule_sherrod_sty.html

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> You might want to have a look at this for background:
> 
> http://www.southernstudies.org/2010/07/the-real-story-of-racism-at-usda.html
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/33ab5sm
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
> >
> > If I was a public servant. Working, paid for by taxpayer dollars, in a 
> > government agency. Any person who has agony, complaint, distress and comes 
> > to 
>me 
>
> > in my position, even if rude, obnoxious, acting superior as they present 
>their 
>
> > strife, as I am a public servant as I work for the people of the country I 
>live, 
>
> > I would not serve the obnoxious person less than anyone else. 
> > 
> > If in my own business, I may tell a person to go to another, but then again 
>as 
>
> > they say, "the customer is always right."
> > People are taught to go to the government for help, if there is no other 
> > help 
>
> > available?
> > When our farmers are suffering, anger will of course come forth. Unless we 
>live 
>
> > in India, then maybe they commit suicide and just step out of the way of 
>life?
> > 
> > Any agency that harnesses laws to the point of extinction of a livelihood, 
>that 
>
&g

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

[ditzyklanmail]

I absolutely agree with your below paragraph. I don't call it obamacare with a 
cap or not. 

When any government starts deciding our health care plan based on statistics, 
it 
is not a good sign. 

It is a very extreme problem that most have not experienced yet. 






From: Mike Dixon 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 27 July, 2010 7:17:19 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

  
Now picture this. You're in your sixties and in fairly good health except you 
need a multiple heart bypass and under Obamacare you are considered too old for 
such care and are offered Plavix or just aspirin as your only option. You want 
to appeal this decision but you have to go to somebody who hasn't had their 
*epiphany* yet. You just might get so pissed that you drop dead of a heart 
attack on the spot! Nobody should have to deal with a government bureaucrat in 
a 
life and death situation.




____
 From: ditzyklanmail 
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 7:25:25 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

  
If I was a public servant. Working, paid for by taxpayer dollars, in a 
government agency. Any person who has agony, complaint, distress and comes to 
me 
in my position, even if rude, obnoxious, acting superior as they present their 
strife, as I am a public servant as I work for the people of the country I 
live, 
I would not serve the obnoxious person less than anyone else. 

If in my own business, I may tell a person to go to another, but then again as 
they say, "the customer is always right."
People are taught to go to the government for help, if there is no other help 
available?
When our farmers are suffering, anger will of course come forth. Unless we live 
in India, then maybe they commit suicide and just step out of the way of life?

Any agency that harnesses laws to the point of extinction of a livelihood, that 
agency does it really have a purpose anymore? 

Is this really about racism or about government getting so large that a farmer 
has to now leave his farm to attempt to get help from a government agency 
instead of growing his crops?? or keeping his farm? 

Look past the people involved and ask why this type of thing is happening to 
people trying to make a living from their own hands.









 From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, 24 July, 2010 9:43:45 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

  
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> See 17:28 in video.

The only audience response at 17:28 is a chuckle.
There are no "cheers," no "applause" anywhere in
the portion of the address where she talks about
the farmer.

And in any case, they aren't chuckles of approval
of racism, they're chuckles of sympathy at her
conflict, of understanding how she felt. OF
COURSE she wasn't going to feel like going out of
her way to help the farmer when he'd been acting
so superior.

Her tone of voice at that point is wry and self-
mocking, strongly suggesting that *she* didn't
approve of having had the feeling she described.

And when she goes on to recount her epiphany--

"Working with him made me see that it's  really
about those who have versus those who haven't.
They could be black, they could be white, they
could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then
that I needed to help poor people--those who
don't have access the way others have."

--you can hear people in the audience going, 
"Mm-hm," "That's right, that's right." The
audience *does* approve of her recognition that
it isn't about race, it's about being poor.

And as to Breitbart's revised charge that the
audience didn't know she was going to describe
an epiphany, and that therefore they were
approving of her pre-epiphany racism not 
realizing she was going to end up renouncing
it, here's how she introduced the story about
the farmer:

-
SHERROD: God is good. I can tell you that. When I
made that commitment, I was making that commitment
to black people -- and to black people only. But
you know God will show you things and  he'll put
things in your path so that you realize that the
struggle is really about poor people, you know.

AUDIENCE: All right. All right.
-

In other words, Breitbart is lying about the
audience's expectations as well. She told them
*in advance* she had undergone an epiphany,
and they very clearly approved of the outcome
before she'd said a word about the farmer.

You and Breitbart haven't got a leg to stand on,
Mike. Shame on you for defending him.

BTW, William Saletan of Slate.com has a piece
that goes through the entire transcript of her
farmer story noting every one of the specific
audience responses. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

[ditzyklanmail]

Exactly why big government does not work. 

Same with monsanto lawyers working in government and changing, making laws to 
suit monsanto.








From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 26 July, 2010 3:11:45 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

  
You might want to have a look at this for background:

http://www.southernstudies.org/2010/07/the-real-story-of-racism-at-usda.html

http://tinyurl.com/33ab5sm

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
>
> If I was a public servant. Working, paid for by taxpayer dollars, in a 
> government agency. Any person who has agony, complaint, distress and comes to 
>me 
>
> in my position, even if rude, obnoxious, acting superior as they present 
> their 

> strife, as I am a public servant as I work for the people of the country I 
>live, 
>
> I would not serve the obnoxious person less than anyone else. 
> 
> If in my own business, I may tell a person to go to another, but then again 
> as 

> they say, "the customer is always right."
> People are taught to go to the government for help, if there is no other help 
> available?
> When our farmers are suffering, anger will of course come forth. Unless we 
> live 
>
> in India, then maybe they commit suicide and just step out of the way of life?
> 
> Any agency that harnesses laws to the point of extinction of a livelihood, 
> that 
>
> agency does it really have a purpose anymore? 
> 
> Is this really about racism or about government getting so large that a 
> farmer 

> has to now leave his farm to attempt to get help from a government agency 
> instead of growing his crops?? or keeping his farm? 
> 
> Look past the people involved and ask why this type of thing is happening to 
> people trying to make a living from their own hands.
> 
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
> >
> > See 17:28 in video.
> 
> The only audience response at 17:28 is a chuckle.
> There are no "cheers," no "applause" anywhere in
> the portion of the address where she talks about
> the farmer.
> 
> And in any case, they aren't chuckles of approval
> of racism, they're chuckles of sympathy at her
> conflict, of understanding how she felt. OF
> COURSE she wasn't going to feel like going out of
> her way to help the farmer when he'd been acting
> so superior.
> 
> Her tone of voice at that point is wry and self-
> mocking, strongly suggesting that *she* didn't
> approve of having had the feeling she described.
> 
> And when she goes on to recount her epiphany--
> 
> "Working with him made me see that it's really
> about those who have versus those who haven't.
> They could be black, they could be white, they
> could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then
> that I needed to help poor people--those who
> don't have access the way others have."
> 
> --you can hear people in the audience going, 
> "Mm-hm," "That's right, that's right." The
> audience *does* approve of her recognition that
> it isn't about race, it's about being poor.
> 
> And as to Breitbart's revised charge that the
> audience didn't know she was going to describe
> an epiphany, and that therefore they were
> approving of her pre-epiphany racism not 
> realizing she was going to end up renouncing
> it, here's how she introduced the story about
> the farmer:
> 
> -
> SHERROD: God is good. I can tell you that. When I
> made that commitment, I was making that commitment
> to black people -- and to black people only. But
> you know God will show you things and he'll put
> things in your path so that you realize that the
> struggle is really about poor people, you know.
> 
> AUDIENCE: All right. All right.
> -
> 
> In other words, Breitbart is lying about the
> audience's expectations as well. She told them
> *in advance* she had undergone an epiphany,
> and they very clearly approved of the outcome
> before she'd said a word about the farmer.
> 
> You and Breitbart haven't got a leg to stand on,
> Mike. Shame on you for defending him.
> 
> BTW, William Saletan of Slate.com has a piece
> that goes through the entire transcript of her
> farmer story noting every one of the specific
> audience responses. Check it against the tape:
> 
> http://www.slate.com/id/2261552/pagenum/all/#p2
> 
> Earlier, you wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
> > >
> > > What I found amusing was on The View this morning.
> > > Andrew Breitbart wa

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

[ditzyklanmail]

If I was a public servant. Working, paid for by taxpayer dollars, in a 
government agency. Any person who has agony, complaint, distress and comes to 
me 
in my position, even if rude, obnoxious, acting superior as they present their 
strife, as I am a public servant as I work for the people of the country I 
live, 
I would not serve the obnoxious person less than anyone else. 

If in my own business, I may tell a person to go to another, but then again as 
they say, "the customer is always right."
People are taught to go to the government for help, if there is no other help 
available?
When our farmers are suffering, anger will of course come forth. Unless we live 
in India, then maybe they commit suicide and just step out of the way of life?

Any agency that harnesses laws to the point of extinction of a livelihood, that 
agency does it really have a purpose anymore? 

Is this really about racism or about government getting so large that a farmer 
has to now leave his farm to attempt to get help from a government agency 
instead of growing his crops?? or keeping his farm? 

Look past the people involved and ask why this type of thing is happening to 
people trying to make a living from their own hands.









From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 24 July, 2010 9:43:45 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> See 17:28 in video.

The only audience response at 17:28 is a chuckle.
There are no "cheers," no "applause" anywhere in
the portion of the address where she talks about
the farmer.

And in any case, they aren't chuckles of approval
of racism, they're chuckles of sympathy at her
conflict, of understanding how she felt. OF
COURSE she wasn't going to feel like going out of
her way to help the farmer when he'd been acting
so superior.

Her tone of voice at that point is wry and self-
mocking, strongly suggesting that *she* didn't
approve of having had the feeling she described.

And when she goes on to recount her epiphany--

"Working with him made me see that it's really
about those who have versus those who haven't.
They could be black, they could be white, they
could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then
that I needed to help poor people--those who
don't have access the way others have."

--you can hear people in the audience going, 
"Mm-hm," "That's right, that's right." The
audience *does* approve of her recognition that
it isn't about race, it's about being poor.

And as to Breitbart's revised charge that the
audience didn't know she was going to describe
an epiphany, and that therefore they were
approving of her pre-epiphany racism not 
realizing she was going to end up renouncing
it, here's how she introduced the story about
the farmer:

-
SHERROD: God is good. I can tell you that. When I
made that commitment, I was making that commitment
to black people -- and to black people only. But
you know God will show you things and he'll put
things in your path so that you realize that the
struggle is really about poor people, you know.

AUDIENCE: All right. All right.
-

In other words, Breitbart is lying about the
audience's expectations as well. She told them
*in advance* she had undergone an epiphany,
and they very clearly approved of the outcome
before she'd said a word about the farmer.

You and Breitbart haven't got a leg to stand on,
Mike. Shame on you for defending him.

BTW, William Saletan of Slate.com has a piece
that goes through the entire transcript of her
farmer story noting every one of the specific
audience responses. Check it against the tape:

http://www.slate.com/id/2261552/pagenum/all/#p2

Earlier, you wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
> >
> > What I found amusing was on The View this morning.
> > Andrew Breitbart was accused of *editing* the
> > video he posted to exclude exculpatory evidence
> > that Ms Sherrod was not racist. However, The View
> > did that very thing. They showed the same clip 
> > but edited out the applause, laughter etc of NAACP 
> > members as Ms Sherrod admitted she did less than
> > she could have to help the white farmer who
> > came to her for help because she thought he was
> > trying to show that he was superior to her.

"The View" showed a heavily edited-down version
of the video Breitbart posted; it was just a few
highlights. The full Breitbart video was too long.

(Whoopi apparently didn't realize this when she
introduced it and misspoke when she said it was
the same as his. If you watch the tape, you can
see that someone on the production staff tries to
correct her, but she doesn't understand what the
person is signaling to her.)

They didn't "edit out the applause" because there
was none to edit out. And they didn't "edit out"
the one chuckle, they edited out the whole chunk
of the speech that generated it, along with
several other chunks. It was an abbreviated
ver

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

[ditzyklanmail]

Nope.





From: Mike Dixon 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 25 July, 2010 2:19:38 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

  
Yo Ditz, depends on how you define *far right* and from what perspective. I'm 
definitely far right of someone that is far left, which would put me right 
about 
center or slightly to the right of center. I consider myself moderately 
conservative, socially and economically. I believe in equal opportunity for all 
but not necessarily equal outcome for all. I don't think anybody owes me 
anything I haven't earned nor do I  believe I owe anybody anything they haven't 
earned. I'm against redistribution of wealth, but not against a social safety 
net, as long as it doesn't become a hammock. I'm against a strong powerful 
federal government, but for  stronger local governments. Now does that make me 
a 
right wing radical?



____
 From: ditzyklanmail 
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sun, July 25, 2010 7:42:55 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

  
I have not read enough on the mason dixon line dude to know if he supports the 
far right. lol.
Labels of division I think are mentioned in the Art of War. 

We are all human. : )
If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in 
superior 
strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. 
Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give 
him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject 
are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, 
appear where you are not expected.
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War  




 From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, 24 July, 2010 10:37:21 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

  
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> It's intended to have shock value. If you can't reach out
> and hit someone or are too cowardly to do so, just call
> them a racist. It's usually an act of frustration and
> despiration, one I find laughable

FWIW, Mike, I don't think you're a racist. I think you
often allow yourself to be misled by folks on the right,
like Breitbart, who *are* racists.

> and means, in this case, I've won the arguement.

Not so fast. I just made a longish post--it hasn't shown 
up yet--addressing your claims regarding Sherrod and
Breitbart.




 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

[ditzyklanmail]

I have not read enough on the mason dixon line dude to know if he supports the 
far right. lol.
Labels of division I think are mentioned in the Art of War. 

We are all human. : )
If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in  
superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to 
irritate  him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking 
his ease,  give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If 
sovereign and  subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him 
where he is  unprepared, appear where you are not expected.
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War 




From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 24 July, 2010 10:37:21 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> It's intended to have shock value. If you can't reach out
> and hit someone or are too cowardly to do so, just call
> them a racist. It's usually an act of frustration and
> despiration, one I find laughable

FWIW, Mike, I don't think you're a racist. I think you
often allow yourself to be misled by folks on the right,
like Breitbart, who *are* racists.

> and means, in this case, I've won the arguement.

Not so fast. I just made a longish post--it hasn't shown 
up yet--addressing your claims regarding Sherrod and
Breitbart.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

[ditzyklanmail]

This can be misinterpreted as love too.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38393697





From: Mike Dixon 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 24 July, 2010 10:33:51 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

  
Sure is a lot of hate coming from the *peace/love* crowd.





 From: WillyTex 
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, July 24, 2010 7:32:45 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

  


Robert:
> If you know any Mormons personally, you will 
> find that they are brain-washed and racist...
> 
Don't you just hate those Mormons!



 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

[ditzyklanmail]

I really do not understand why you are being called a racist. 
The human race is one. 

Now let's go http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjFd3ekLXVI










From: Mike Dixon 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 23 July, 2010 11:33:18 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

  
Actually PostalReflux, I never said the NAACP *cheered racism*, I said they 
applauded and laughed etc. Ms Sherrod,when she admitted she didn't do 
everything 
she could to help the farmer. Check17:28 mark in the video.  After her 
statement 
that she was trying to decide just how much she was going to help him, what do 
you think was the sentiment of the crowd's noise,one of repudiation or one of 
sympathy and agreement,for what she had just said? She decided she would send 
him to *one of his own kind*. This was the very point Andrew Breitbart was 
making by posting this video, that people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing 
rocks after the NAACP had accused the Tea Party of having racist elements 
within 
it and demanding they expel them. Andrew Breitbart still has a reward of  
$100,000.00
for anyone who can provide video of Tea Party people calling Congressman John 
Lewis or any other black congressman, the *N* word as they descended the steps 
of the capitol for the vote for Obamacare,as has been alleged. No takers yet! 
There were dozens of cell phone and camcorders running at the time. I know if I 
had it, I would claim it! Wouldn't you?




 From: do.rflex 
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Fri, July 23, 2010 8:52:42 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?

  


--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> See 17:28 in video.
> 

Dixon is lying. 17:28 in the video shows no "cheering of racism." Readers can 
see the video for themselves here: 

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=E9NcCa_ KjXk

Confederate Man, Mike Dixon is desperate to find racism from blacks --- even 
imagining it where there IS none --- as if that could somehow exonerate his 
Southern white racist heroes from their OWN *very real* ugly racism.

> 
>  _ _ __
> From: raunchydog 
> To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010  9:52:39 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?
> 
> Â  
> Full unedited tape at NAACP
> http://www.naacp. org/news/ entry/video_ sherrod/
> I watched the whole tape. The audience does not cheer racism. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
> >
> > What I found amusing was on The View this morning. Andrew Breitbart was 
>accused 
>
> >
> > of *editing* the video he posted to exclude exculpatory evidence that Ms 
> >Sherrod 
> >
> > was not racist. However, The View did that very thing. They showed the 
>same 
>
> >clip 
> >
> > but edited out the applause, laughter etc of NAACP members as Ms Sherrod 
> >  admitted she did less than she could have to help the  white farmer 
>who came 
>
> >to 
> >
> > her for help because she thought he was trying to show that he was superior 
>to 
>
> 
> > her.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  _ _ __
> > From: WillyTex 
> > To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Thu, July 22, 2010 8:59:37 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Obama afraid of Glenn Beck?
> > 
> >   
> > "They made me quit because I was going to be 
> > on Glenn Beck."- Shirley Sherrod
> > 
> > "Everyone was so quick to watch the original 
> > video posted on Big Government, but they 
> > didn't take the time to read the article that 
> > Andrew Breitbart wrote..." 
> > 
> > Read more:
> > 
> > 'What I Learned From the Shirley Sherrod Case'
> > http://tinyurl. com/2w6qsum
> >
>



 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj - Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Anti-Authoritarian variety), plus Something Darker?

[ditzyklanmail]

because you don't smoke it? 
lol





From: Vaj 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 19 July, 2010 4:50:33 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj - Narcissistic Personality Disorder 
(Anti-Authoritarian variety), plus Something Darker?

  


On Jul 19, 2010, at 5:44 PM, ditzyklanmail wrote:

saccharin is a derivative of coal.
>
>


Then how come you don't get Dieter's Lung?
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj - Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Anti-Authoritarian variety), plus Something Darker?

[ditzyklanmail]

saccharin is a derivative of coal.






From: Vaj 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 19 July, 2010 4:25:27 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj - Narcissistic Personality Disorder 
(Anti-Authoritarian variety), plus Something Darker?

  

On Jul 19, 2010, at 4:34 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote:

> On Jul 19, 2010, at 2:35 PM, Peter L Sutphen wrote:
> 
>> In another group situation that MDG is impacting through his behavior, he 
>>simply refuses to answer difficult questions.
> 
> Not surprising.  And the ones Ruth asked 
> weren't even very difficult!  Not to most
> people, anyway.

Michael Dean Goodman only speaks the sweet truth, or saccharine if you happen 
to 
be on a diet. Don't expect to hear any of that rakshasic dark stuff from him! 
Clearly Ruth has gone over to the Dark Side of the Force. She's on her own, our 
sattvic insurance won't take her!
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: President Obama's Hair Turning Greyer

[ditzyklanmail]

Like when they close in on 50 years old. : )






From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 19 July, 2010 4:05:21 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: President Obama's Hair Turning Greyer

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> We wonder why?  And, he hasn't even completed his first term.
> Just imagine what it would look like if he gets re-elected.

Happens to just about all of 'em. Happened to GWB and
Clinton, fer sure.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mars and Saturn Conjunction Coming Soon

[ditzyklanmail]

Cool!





From: Peter L Sutphen 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" 
Sent: Mon, 19 July, 2010 4:19:56 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mars and Saturn Conjunction Coming Soon

  
Lord Shiva's going to come in and kick that jyotish ass!

Peter

On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:21 PM, "John"  wrote:

> This conjunction will continue until the first week of September, 2010.  So, 
>don't be too hasty in your disbelief.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>>> 
>>> This will happen tomorrow on July 20, 2010.  In jyotish, this conjunction 
>>> is 
>>>considered to be very malefic.  Given the world situation today, it's 
>>>possible 
>>>that there can be a major accident in the USA similar to the train wreck in 
>>>India.  There might be an attempt by an al-Qaeda type organization to 
>>>disrupt 
>>>the peace anywhere in the world.  The smoldering hatred in the Middle East 
>>>may 
>>>erupt again with some kind of attacks in the Gaza Strip, Iraq or Iran.
>>> 
>>> On the positive side, Jupiter is aspecting this conjunction.  As such, the 
>>>negative effects may be mitigated or eliminated altogether.
>>> 
>>> JR
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In other words, something may happen tomorrow or something may not happen 
>>tomorrow - just like any other day of the year.  - - - DUH !
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Or go to: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mars and Saturn Conjunction Coming Soon

[ditzyklanmail]

Lots of loud music for me!??
 Mangal Shani conjunct  or aspects has made me be in the presence or really 
loud 
amplified guitars and drums type of music in the past few years, so let's see! 
???

Maybe not, but fun to watch for!






From: John 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 19 July, 2010 2:21:33 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mars and Saturn Conjunction Coming Soon

  
This conjunction will continue until the first week of September, 2010.  So, 
don't be too hasty in your disbelief.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > This will happen tomorrow on July 20, 2010.  In jyotish, this conjunction 
> > is 
>considered to be very malefic.  Given the world situation today, it's possible 
>that there can be a major accident in the USA similar to the train wreck in 
>India.  There might be an attempt by an al-Qaeda type organization to disrupt 
>the peace anywhere in the world.  The smoldering hatred in the Middle East may 
>erupt again with some kind of attacks in the Gaza Strip, Iraq or Iran.
> > 
> > On the positive side, Jupiter is aspecting this conjunction.  As such, the 
>negative effects may be mitigated or eliminated altogether.
> > 
> > JR
> >
> 
> 
> In other words, something may happen tomorrow or something may not happen 
>tomorrow - just like any other day of the year.  - - - DUH !
>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sat-Guru Lucy

[ditzyklanmail]

sell it to Penn and Teller! 
thanks for sharing!





From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 18 July, 2010 5:41:06 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sat-Guru Lucy

  
Excellent!!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
>
> A young yogi was making his way south from the Himalayas -- where he had been 
> a 
>close working disciple of a famous saint and yogi. He took his time, This was 
>newly post-British, post-partition India -- freedom rippled through the air. 
>He 
>enjoyed the leisurely pace of hoping on the roof of a train -- sometimes even 
>splurging for a seat in 3rd class  -- sleeping by rivers, drinking chai in the 
>morning in busy morning ad hoc market places - the ripe bounty of nature in 
>all 
>of its colors and scents like a waterfall over the senses. Life was good. 
>Anything was possible. 
>
> 
> A thought arose of the West -- and the suffering there. Could he help the 
>devastating poverty of the soul in that desolate land?  Silly thought. More 
>chai. Of course he could in theory -- having gained vast wisdom and insight at 
>the feet of his teacher. But westerners were not interested in pujas, samadhi, 
>caves of silence, the blazing light of the universe shining within. 
>
> 
> But several days later, a second thought of the west. "These incessant 
>thoughts! What! Did I eat something impure?!" Then his gaze landed on an old 
>copy of a British newspaper. He enjoyed the Brit journalists -- even as he 
>loathed -- in a dis-attached way -- the imperialsts of that little cold, foggy 
>island. They reminded him of college -- prior to his discipleship -- when he 
>had 
>aspired to become an engineer - maybe a physicist - helping to rebuild India 
>to 
>become again the beacon to the world -- the gateway to vast prosperity and the 
>Divine - together. 
>
> 
> His gaze was caught by some simple sketches. A series of little paintings. A 
>frustrated little boy, clearly with huge doubts overhanging in every 
>direction. 
>A quite clever, self-assured guru-ma little girl -- "no, no, this time will be 
>good" she brazenly declared.  "Come on, do it". The little boy charged at this 
>-- what, such an odd shaped soccer ball. HA! the little boy kicks into air as 
>the little yogini snatches the ball away at the last minute. The boy is laid 
>flat prone in the air. HA! I feel the thud of his little back hitting the 
>ground. The wind knocked out of him completely. Nothing is at it seems. Foiled 
>again. HA! 
>
> 
> Another chai, a bit of paan. And then, the Eureka light of God exploded 
> within. 
>Thats the gateway to the west. And their ticket out of their miserable poverty 
>of the soul. Keep tricking them, until they get IT -- the impermanence of 
>everything. And what is left after that?
> Vast, unbounded nothingness. 
> 
> Build them up, promise this time its for real -- and always, always snatch 
> the 
>ball away from them. Promise them this, then give them that. With no 
>explanation. Let their little baffled heads explode in confusion until its all 
>emptiness -- and then fullness inside and outside. 
>
> 
> Yes! That is the message for the west. Promise them their wildest dreams, and 
>more -- then every time the goal is near, snatch that ball from under them. 
>Act 
>surprised when questioned -- "ball -- what ball". Tell them to adore the red 
>ball. When its clearly a black ball. Tell them the ball is 12 feet tall, when 
>it 
>is barely 12 inches tall. Let them scratch their head, dazed and confused. Let 
>them create all of their stories of why the ball really is 12 feet tall and 
>red, 
>or why it really is not going to be pulled away at the last minute. Let them 
>tell their stories, over and over and over and over -- until they run out of 
>stories. About the ball, about themselves and about  life. Just emptiness 
>remains. Just a hallow universe. Just fullness.
> 
> He stood on a large rock at the riverside, began to talk about how he was 
> going 
>to bring the  west and the world out of darkness, how the glory of inner and 
>outer life would reign supreme again in India and the World. People listened, 
>people were inspired. The yogi's needs were met. A meal. A train ticket. 
>Finally 
>a plane ticket to the west. 
>
> 
> He landed in Los Angeles and began to talk of great and grand things. And how 
>people could transform their lives and have everything they ever  dreamed of. 
>And on and on. And then suddenly that 12 foot red ball disappeared. "Oh, oh, 
>not 
>to worry, just a small understanding." And then the same grand story again. 
>Then 
>wham -- 100 westerners flat on their backs. Again. It was too hard to keep 
>from 
>laughing. So he did begin to giggle -- to let some of the laughter out. Always 
>giggling.
> 
> The stories grew grander. The crowds grew larger. The ceremony of getting 
> ready 
>to kick the ball became more elaborate. And always the same. whish -- ball 
>swooped  away at the las minute.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: How would the TMO have unfolded differently if ...

[ditzyklanmail]

And some worship the beatles as gurus of  life and all of existence, as if it 
is 
any less of a large commercial venture, but that can't be possible because it 
was by only talent and young happy faces and quick wit shown to millions of 
teenage girls at the bulk of puberty, a mass of baby boomers coming out of the 
dark ages all at once, because it was the beatles who rule all. Enter, the all 
heavenly shrine of the beatles. In your face advertising for years to come. 
They 
knew, they know everything!
 Gather your teenage granddaughters and hand them four images or mulitple 
photos 
of the once young, beatles, so they too can mastribate the words of peace and 
love as if that has happened. 


Sorry got carried away. 
How many will slap what is written here down, because the beatles could do no 
harm to anyone, ever! lol


(email spoofing is not nice)






From: curtisdeltablues 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 18 July, 2010 10:55:23 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: How would the TMO have unfolded differently if ...

  
That is the funny thing.  After the Beatles left India they gave the most 
powerful PR broadcast for this message possible.  The world of popular culture 
hung on their every word as they described how they had discovered that 
Maharishi was a fraudulent monk.  I was just a kid and I knew about it.

But the movement went through a Lady Gaga-like transformation from spiritual 
practice centered on the personality of Maharishi, to a sciency sounding pseudo 
medical practice focused on the scientific charts.  It was brilliant 
re-branding 
very consciously orchestrated by Maharishi.

It gave rise to the two teachings, one for the public and one for insiders.  
The 
one for the public spread far and wide (Mary Tyler Moore is meditating, 
woweee!) 
and the internal teaching became increasingly esoteric (better round up those 
trouser trout boys if you want to get to the promise land.)

Those divisions exist today in the PR brochure version of what TM is about, 
delivered in Reaganesque affability (Ah shucks fellas TM isn't much more than 
15 
minutes of set'n a spell and let'n your mind and body settle down like dust 
after a rain storm.)

But the inconvenient existence of the made-for-reality-TV Rajas has irrevocably 
broken down the separateness of these points of view.  It gives any interested 
party a golden highway to how the inner circle views itself. (When ARE they 
going to break out the noise makers at those Raja gatherings, and why don't 
they 
hire a Wiggles impersonator band for this 5-year-old's birthday party?  Sorry 
I'm on a roll here... and why can't the women join the fun with princess dress 
up tiaras and sparkly princess nails or ballerina dresses with platform toe 
shoes that make them all look like they are walking around on point?  Sorry I 
got a little carried away there but I perform for a lot of kids and the 
dress-up 
fantasies seem remarkably similar.  I saw a kid last night in a Luke Skywalker 
outfit and it was a dead ringer for a crown-less Raja outfit!) 


I suspect the nuthouse scene behind the curtain will be revealed in the 
documentary, "David Wants to Fly."

http://www.rickross.com/reference/tm/tm185.html 

I don't think the movement has got anything to worry about with outside 
detractors.  Attacks on the credibility of groups like TM just make the 
faithful 
rally together stronger against the common enemy.  That is what makes it so 
tough for women in Judith's situation to come out if they are still invested in 
the group.

It is the inner rot of people who have dumbed down the extravagant claims of 
the 
TM of their youth, blossoming into fairly ordinary problems and concerns of 
middle and older age.

Reality has a way of intruding on fantasy like that.  But I enjoyed my run on 
they yellow brick road.  How about you?


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
>
> if the knowledge of the relationships had been common knowledge back then?
>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Birthday Joe

[ditzyklanmail]

Happy Belated Birthday geezer guy!






From: curtisdeltablues 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 18 July, 2010 11:48:08 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Happy Birthday Joe

  
Hey Joe,

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

Hope this year is one more year of proof of the wisdom of Tim Leary's quote:

"You're only as old as the last time you REALLY changed your mind!"

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> Today is Joe's (GeezerFreak's) birthday. Happy Birthday Joe!
>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

[ditzyklanmail]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ5RKeXlfSA&feature=related

Oh, this one is better. : )






From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 17 July, 2010 3:01:04 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

  
I made six posts last weekend about whether MMY
outright lied about his purported celibacy. The
last five were attempts to explain what I was
interested in to folks who had misunderstood it.

Here's Barry's comment on those posts:

> I have noticed that the Judester is given to denying
> that she does things whilst in the midst of doing
> those very things.
>
> Like getting so emotionally invested
> in an issue that she makes 45 posts in two days,
> while denying that she has any investment in the
> issue.

Maybe if Barry could get a little emotional distance
from whatever it is that agitates him, he wouldn't
find himself constantly fantasizing things that
aren't so.

> I kinda figure that she's gonna roll back into Dodge
> this coming week with a six-gun on her hip and a chip
> on her shoulder, spoilin' for a fight. And she should
> have something to fight *over*. So I made a few...uh...
> provocative posts this morning to give her something
> to obsess over.

Sorry, no, they weren't the kind of posts I'd
obsess over. Most of them were just retreads of
stuff you've said scores of times.

> I am evil, I confess it, the bad guy wearing a black
> hat in the gunfight. Or just playful, like Coyote.
> Your call.

Here's my call as to the most appropriate image:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ycY4JdflyQ


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Another take on Judith's book

[ditzyklanmail]

..and now an ad by our sponsor. ...
haha. cute and funny.






From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 17 July, 2010 1:25:21 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Another take on Judith's book

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> On Jul 17, 2010, at 1:14 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
> > 
> > I suspect Judith was always on her guard around Maharishi 
> > until she finally broke and let him know what she really 
> > felt at the end. 
> 
> Is that actually described in the book?
> 
> Could you (with spoilers) tell us what she, in essence, said? 
> One wonders if she ever "got her say" and he heard it.
> 
> Of course if she did that explains while she would wait till 
> after he passed to publish the book: she already had her say, 
> her chance to tell him off. Often exposé books are a roundabout 
> way of telling their abuser or abusers off--at a safe distance. 
> In such a case, Judith already had her face-to-face closure 
> and could be seen as having the inner dignity to wait till M. 
> passed, out of respect for what good she felt he had done.
> 
> Just curious (and cheap ;-)).

I'll pass on the spoilers, thanks, but now I'll
definitely buy the book, because this has me 
curious. I'm interested in the writing *process*
that anyone goes through who undertakes to write
a book about a supposedly enlightened teacher
and who tries to do so honestly, telling the
story "warts and all."

I was actually asked, face to face, explicitly,
by Rama to write a book about him. Still blissed
out at the time, I said "Yes." Then I tried it,
and found that I was having a very hard time 
doing it while being true to myself and my real
feelings. The real feelings prevailed, and I left
his study entirely, the book barely started.

And then he croaked himself, and I was left with
that big "Yes" I had said when he asked me to 
write a book about what it was like to study with
him. I wound up having to write it, to get that
"Yes" monkey off my back. 

I too tried to do so in as balanced a way as I
possibly could, trying not to diminish the good
things Rama did while not being afraid to talk
about the possibly less than good things he did.
It's a stone bitch. A veritable razor's edge. I
have respect for anyone who attempts to walk it.

Thanks for reminding me why I originally wanted
to read Judith's book, back when Joe first men-
tioned it. I'll order it as soon as I return 
from my vacation. 

My book's at http://www.ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/index.html

Free, like the way I finally felt when I finished it.

There is no sex in it, unless you count scorpion sex. :-)


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Maharishis expansion in South-East Asia

[ditzyklanmail]

I can not believe that. All that you wrote. 







From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 16 July, 2010 5:08:49 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Maharishis expansion in South-East Asia

  
The Dolly lama does not approve. When the monks learn TM that actually works, 
the Lama becomes upset and send in the fools we know from FFL, the Vaj and the 
Turq, fellows that are active on numberless sites/blogs under different names.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Another woman comes forward

[ditzyklanmail]

Very nice, Stein. 






From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 17 July, 2010 7:54:08 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Another woman comes forward

  
252248

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> Anonymously:

> I have been reading, almost obsessively-compulsively, the
> sequential discussions re: Judith's book on FFL.  At first
> it was with a sigh of relief, that one lady had opened up,
> and was so well received.  Now the dirt is rolling in--
> people doing their best to cast doubt on her experiences,
> to besmirch her integrity, to ridicule what she has to say
> just so they will feel better.  And people wonder why the
> other ladies don't come forward.

I'd like to repeat the point I made to Curtis in
a recent post. I don't know whether it'll make a
difference to you and Judith and any other ladies
in your situation who are reading these
discussions, but I think it's important for you
to be aware of it.

A good deal of the "dirt rolling in" that you're
seeing here really isn't aimed at you; it's a
function of longstanding personal antagonisms
among the members of FFL. Some of the TM critics
are using Judith's revelations to bash the TMers,
and the TMer-bashees are bashing back. Certain
members of the two factions are using Judith as
a sort of football to make points against each
other.

This surely doesn't reflect well on FFL, but FFL
is what it is, and it isn't likely to change.
Maybe this isn't the best place for you to follow
the responses to Judith's book, since it's almost
impossible to sort out which aspects of it have
to do with feelings about Judith's revelations
and which have to do with FFL members' feelings
about each other (some of which don't even have
to do with TMer-vs.-TM critic but simply with
one individual vs. another).

But if you do continue to read here, please try
to take this unique situation of FFL into
account. It's all too easy to say you shouldn't
take the ugly stuff personally; I'm just hoping
that knowing it isn't all directed at you will
help you get a bit of distance from it. Try not
to let the power struggles here add extraneous
garbage to the weight you're already carrying.

As others have said, it takes real guts to go
public, even anonymously. But it's a good thing
for TMers and TM critics alike, painful as it is;
you've done us all a huge service at your own
great expense. Some here do get that and are
deeply grateful. For others, it may take awhile.

In the meantime, wishing you--wishing everyone--
blessings and healing.

Judy


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judith Bourque expose

[ditzyklanmail]

Even if you are partly correct, how annoying to put Amy Whine house as a 
rebuttle. Geez.






From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 15 July, 2010 11:15:04 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judith Bourque expose

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> Oops! Hit a nerve? Vaj sees nothing wrong with lying or promoting lies about 
>Maharishi, but when someone like emptybill, who has no dog in the fight, 
>presents information that questions Judith's motivation and truthfulness, 
>rather 
>than acknowledge there's room for doubt, he resorts to invectives. I'm not 
>surprised. It's not possible to expect any better of him.

Nor of The Turq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmV6_oc2lwM&NR=1


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

[ditzyklanmail]

Stein is correct. I did not nor did she ever communicate with me on private. 

Please do not mind their interpretations of my question. I apologize to Stein 
if 
this was awkward. I was just making a point. I like Stein's responses on this 
FFL and I wouldn't negatively challenge Stein with a 10 foot pole, because 
Stein 
would eat me alive. 


It was funny to see how quickly some could think a conspiracy was going on 
based 
on a question. That is all I was doing. 

Peace.






From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 16 July, 2010 8:28:50 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
[ditzyklanmail wrote:]
> > > You mean I cannot forward an email to a post count
> > > under my user name? 
> > 
> > I don’t understand the question.
> 
> The language is not at all clear, but it sounds like
> ditzy wants to forward to FFL a privately emailed
> reply from Judy. Or publicly reply to Judy's private
> email on FFL.

This was all ditzy's idea. I've never emailed her
about anything. Looks like she just wanted to be helpful.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Spiritual teachers having sex with their students as IDEA

[ditzyklanmail]

Heh. I am sorry, but this description, " rock-hard dhoti dolphin"  is very 
funny. 






From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 16 July, 2010 7:07:27 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Spiritual teachers having sex with their students as 
IDEA

  
Let's step back from the emotions that Judith Bourque's
book have brought up, and the feelings one way or another
that we have about Maharishi. Just to see if anyone can
do it, I propose a thread in which we keep the situation
completely hypothetical, and try to discuss it as if we
were not emotionally attached to the situation. Can you
do it? We'll see.

The hypothetical situation involves an unidentified spir-
itual teacher, within an unidentified spiritual tradition.
This teacher is regarded with some reverence by his 
students, some of whom regard him as holy -- so holy that
according to the dogma of that spiritual tradition, he 
can do no wrong. In this tradition, the spiritual teacher
in question has absolute power. He can decide on a whim
to excommunicate someone from the organization, and has
in fact done this, as all of his remaining students 
know full well. 

OK, given the above, this hypothetical spiritual teacher
springs a big, rock-hard dhoti dolphin for one of his 
female students. He thinks she's got a marvelous pair 
of...uh...chakras and would like to caress them. He'd 
like to ask her to have sex with him.

Should he do it?

Are there moral and ethical factors that exist in this 
situation that would not exist if we were talking about
some average man and woman on the street?

Are there *power differential* issues inherent in asking
someone to have sex with you if you have the power not
only to "fire" her and kick her out of your organization
but have the power to excommunicate her from what she
considers her religion or spiritual path in life?

Are there *abuse of trust* issues inherent in the person
she came to in innocence and whom she regards as her 
trusted spiritual teacher suddenly asking her to get 
naked and have sex with him?

I'm throwing this situation out as IDEA, to see if there
is anyone here who can discuss it *as* idea, and without
conflating the idea with a particular person. 

I for one think that it would be fun to discuss it that
way. I welcome responses from anyone willing to discuss
this IDEA *as* idea, and will probably join in the dis-
cussion (warning in advance that at this point I only
have three more posts I can make until Saturday morning).
I will ignore any attempts to turn this idea into a 
"Shoot the messenger" or "Make it all about Maharishi 
and defend him or bash him" flame-fest. We've got enough 
of those threads on Fairfield Life already. Can we have 
one thread that's a discussion between adults, as adults?


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amy Winehouse

[ditzyklanmail]

English blues??? Ha!  

Amy is overrated. Good singer but Hanna Montana-ed

 I am not into this kind of blues, but this girl has got ithas had it and 
will continue and does not need auto-tune. : )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRbN85LPOXY&feature=related

Real Southern music continues, recorded without the bells and whistles:
  http://www.youtube.com/user/Pointbarney007#p/u/46/Zsr21ms2E_I





From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 15 July, 2010 10:43:14 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Amy Winehouse and Vaj's denial

  


Like Amy, Vaj is no, no, no. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_1hasiYdgc&feature=channel

David Letterman meets, for once, a real artist and makes a fool of himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlRF43-xaYc&feature=related

Will you love me tomorrow: Amy Winehouse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygxQu08g2mg&feature=related

I die a hundred times: Amy Winehouse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1evzhSast8


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Acoustic Amy Winehouse

[ditzyklanmail]

yep. Hanna Montana. lol






From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 15 July, 2010 11:05:14 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Acoustic Amy Winehouse

  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu7uPHtTJ4o&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu7uPHtTJ4o&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmV6_oc2lwM&feature=related


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Dr. Michael Dean Goodman - Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Pseudo-Guru variety)?

[ditzyklanmail]

LOL. It has regressed to intellectual name calling. hahahahaha.





From: Vaj 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 15 July, 2010 7:28:47 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Dr. Michael Dean Goodman - Narcissistic 
Personality 
Disorder  (Pseudo-Guru variety)?

  


On Jul 15, 2010, at 7:58 PM, It's just a ride wrote:


>On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Dr. Michael Dean Goodman com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Here's a repeat of my post from earlier this afternoon.  The
>>formatting was so garbled that all the lines got broken up
>>and it was very hard to read.  Here's a cleaner version.  I 
>>apologize for the double posting.  This one should be much
>>easier on the eyes and the brain.  ;)
>>
>>
>>Dear Fairfield Lifers,
>>
>>I'm a professional (Ph.D.) therapist who's worked with over 
>>a thousand clients over the the past 38 years.  I've quietly 
>>read Vaj's numerous postings on this list for many years, 
>>since he first joined.  Although Vaj has never claimed any 
>>professional training or credentials in the counseling world, 
>>he repeatedly uses the "diagnosis" of "personality disorders" 
>>to put down his perceived enemies.  This is humorous, and 
>>a whopping case of projection, since Vaj's huge body of post-
>>ings reveal that he is a prime candidate for a diagnosis of 
>>Narcissistic Personality Disorder (anti-authoritarian flavor) 
>>himself.  Let's just take a look:
>>
>>
>>

Vaj believes himself to be a psychiatrist.  Ask him about the psychiatric 
practice he was going to buy. 


I do?

I was going to buy a "psychiatrist practice"? 

Why didn't anyone tell me?!

What an odd day. Despite having several friends, including my best friend (who 
are psychiatrists) tell me I'm not only one of the most mentally healthy 
persons 
they know, I'm told by some TM-bot (who's allegedly no longer championing 
pro-TM 
claims) that I have a personality disorder! 

To top it off the person who tells me I'm a narcissist has observed 
narcissistic 
tendencies himself!


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] A Great Jew in London

[ditzyklanmail]

What a weird title.  Warren says it better.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRHIeblmIws&feature=related






From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 15 July, 2010 9:57:30 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] A Great Jew in London

  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll7UFxqI2pM


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judith Bourque expose

[ditzyklanmail]

The spirituals "Jerry Springer" show! lol. : )






From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 15 July, 2010 8:32:14 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Judith Bourque expose

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill"  wrote:
>
> I case you haven't seen this yet, here is some info that may give you
> pause ... at least to bracket what you have heard or read:
>
>
http://conny-larsson-exposed.blogspot.com/2009/03/filmmaker-judith-bourq\
\
> ue.html
>
>
> Introduction To Judith Bourque
>
> A Synopsis
>
> Although Conny Larsson continually attempts to portray himself as a
> sincere and bona fide psychic trance medium, meditation master and
> Vedic mantra acharya, he acts very much like a cult leader who
operates
> on the premises of suppression and cover-ups. It is a fact that Conny
> Larsson solicited himself as a psychic trance medium for Maharshi
> Vyasa. It is also a fact the Conny Larsson and Judith Bourque
purposely
> and knowingly falsified and removed information from the
> vedicmasterclass.org website in a brazen attempt to cover-up and
> suppress Conny Larsson's psychic trance medium claims.
>
> Instead of giving lip service to love, truth, compassion, healing and
> spirituality, Judith Bourque should first practice what she preaches.
> Falsifying testimonies and covering-up information for her psychic
Guru
> do not speak well for Judith Bourque's spiritual integrity. Judith
> Bourque is an exemplary example of Conny Larsson's
> pseudo-spirituality.

This woman is the person Rick Archer et al is using as a proof against
Maharishi ??

Amazing and sad. Given Rick Archer's track record regarding truthfulness
it's not surprizing.

That fellow will embraze anyone, any lie will do.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Group Sexual Gossip Due to Planetary Transit

[ditzyklanmail]

nabby your appearance under this conjunction may be sexual frustration. lol






From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 15 July, 2010 4:05:47 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Group Sexual Gossip Due to Planetary Transit

  

> 
> 
> 
> From: John 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 15 July, 2010 2:55:19 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Group Sexual Gossip Due to Planetary Transit
> 
> 
> You may not know it.  But everyone has been influenced by the conjunction of 
> Mars and Venus in Leo for the past few days.  This conjunction elicits 
> actions 

> resulting in sexual affairs or discussions about the same matter.

I see, so Rick Archer is under a permanent pressure from Mars and Venus in Leo ?

Thought so.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Group Sexual Gossip Due to Planetary Transit

[ditzyklanmail]

lol. and please tell what you think about the time of the total eclipse on 
Sunday and in conjunction with this influence? 







From: John 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 15 July, 2010 2:55:19 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Group Sexual Gossip Due to Planetary Transit

  
You may not know it.  But everyone has been influenced by the conjunction of 
Mars and Venus in Leo for the past few days.  This conjunction elicits actions 
resulting in sexual affairs or discussions about the same matter.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Guess who! ; )

[ditzyklanmail]

Krishna?





From: cardemaister 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 15 July, 2010 6:59:06 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Guess who! ; )

  

"In clean and cool crystalline halls he engaged himself 
continuously in all forms of amorous indulgences with
these charming and responsive women..."

-

"Besides, he studied during this time the Sutras that the
sage Vatsyayana had made on this subject together with
all the commentaries on the same, and also produced a new
work of great profundity on the theme, bearing the name
of ."

Do you know or can you guess who "he" is?


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Most important marriage criterion for Indians: skin color

[ditzyklanmail]

Hahaha! Same expression. 
 The place behind him looks like a restaurant in Brooklynn, Williamsburg, NY. 






From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 14 July, 2010 10:28:18 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Most important marriage criterion for Indians: 
skin 
color

  
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
>
> Funny that you mention this!  I was looking at a photo of an Indian friend on 
> FB. He was pretty dark, like a tropical brown tan.  The picture, lol, looked 
> like technicolor!  I had to look at it for a long time, because I do not 
> remember the person being so light when I visited him in person. Hhaahaha. 
> Now this explains it.
> Thanks for posting!

Doesn't it make ya wonder what this Facebook app would do to Krishna's 
profile photo if he used it? He'd end up looking like this guy.  :-)



>  _ _ __
> From: TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroup s.com
> To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Wed, 14 July, 2010 3:13:11 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Most important marriage criterion for Indians: skin 
> color
> 
> 
> Go figure. Not caste, not wealth, not a compatible Jyotish chart. Lightness 
> of 

> skin color. So much so that there is now an app for Facebook India that will 
> make users' skin in profile photos look lighter. This is Sat Yuga?
> 
> 
> 
> Vaseline launches skin-whitening Facebook app for  India
> NEW DELHI (AFP) â€"  Skincare group Vaseline has introduced a skin-lightening 
> application for Facebook in India, enabling users to  make their faces whiter 
>in 
>
> their profile pictures.
> The download is designed to promote Vaseline's range of skin-lightening  
> creams 
>
> for men, a huge and fast-growing market driven by fashion and a  cultural 
> preference for fairer skin.
> The widget promises to "Transform Your Face On Facebook With Vaseline  Men" 
> in 
>a 
>
> campaign fronted by Bollywood actor Shahid Kapur, who is  depicted with his 
>face 
>
> divided into dark and fair halves.
> "We started campaign  advertising (for the application) from the second week 
> of 
>
> June  and the response has been pretty phenomenal," Pankaj Parihar from 
> global 

> advertising firm Omnicom, which designed  the campaign, told AFP.
> Indian cosmetics giant Emami launched the first skin-whitening cream for men 
> in 
>
> 2005,  called "Fair and Handsome" and advertised by Bollywood superstar 
>Shahrukh 
>
> Khan. It came  27 years after the first cream for women.
> Since then a half dozen foreign brands have piled into the male market, 
> including Garnier, L'Oreal and Nivea, which promote the seemingly  magical 
> lightening qualities of their products in ubiquitous  advertising.
> In 2009, a poll of nearly 12,000 people by online dating site Shaadi.com, 
> revealed that skin tone was considered the most important criteria when 
> choosing a partner in three northern Indian states.
> "More and more, there's an anxiety in the mind of men about having fair  
> skin," 
>
> sociology professor T. K. Oommen at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New 
>Delhi 
>
> told AFP.
> "Indians believe that if you have fair skin you belong to the higher  caste, 
>the 
>
> Brahmins,"  he added, explaining that a succession of light-skinned 
> colonisers 

> in India reinforced the  association of fairness with power.
> "The Aryans, who  came from central Asia,  in addition to the Portuguese, the 
> French and the British colonisers  ruled over the country and probably 
> contributed to this negative  perception of dark-skin."
>

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

[ditzyklanmail]

Um.. music and lyrics more like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RESRl39ZYns







From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 13 July, 2010 9:21:16 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
>
> Hahahahaa!  the love saga continues.

In a way. I can laugh at myself over my part in it.
So I can definitely see the whole saga as a kind of
twisted soap opera love/hate drama. But naturally I
prefer other interpretations that appeal more to my
less-than-a-drama-queen predilection. Like a kinda 
multi-lifetime "Showdown At The OK Corral" filmed
by Mel Brooks, or something like that.  :-)

Or, if I were to believe in a God, given the plethora
of traditional descriptions of God available to me
on planet Earth, I would could definitely identify 
with the role of Coyote.

Coyote, like Loki before him, was a Trickster God.
He delighted in fucking with humans' minds. I openly
confess to suspecting that my mother was not quite the 
bastion of fidelity she claimed to be and that Coyote 
may have been my real father. 

I have noticed that the Judester is given to denying
that she does things whilst in the midst of doing 
those very things. Like getting so emotionally invested
in an issue that she makes 45 posts in two days, while 
denying that she has any investment in the issue.

So, having obsessed that heavily early in this week,
I kinda figure that she's gonna roll back into Dodge
this coming week with a six-gun on her hip and a chip
on her shoulder, spoilin' for a fight. And she should
have something to fight *over*. So I made a few...uh...
provocative posts this morning to give her something
to obsess over. Until she hits the 50 mark on Monday,
that is. :-)

I am evil, I confess it, the bad guy wearing a black
hat in the gunfight. Or just playful, like Coyote.
Your call. 

I am just playfully predicting that next week will be
more like the Wild West and The Showdown At The OK 
Corral than it is the plain of Kurukshetra. Below I 
make my musical case for the OK Corral theory; Judy 
is more than free to post similar songs portraying 
her actions as more like the Bhagavad-Gita and noble 
dharma. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwlY6mXy0qs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw_g8BpdCQw

> 
> From: WillyTex 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 13 July, 2010 7:44:21 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's all about Judy.
> 
> TurquoiseB:
> > I'm seeing it as more of an exercise in codependent
> > voyeurism than anything else. He misses Judy shout-
> > ing "REEEAAALLLY STOOOPID" over and over.
> > 
> > After all, it can't be that she's sent him emails
> > privately, because she's claimed that she's "away"
> > until Friday, we all know that Judy Never Lies. 
> > That's what she says, anyway. Then again, many 
> > people here feel that Maharishi never lied, either. 
> > 
> > Might I suggest an alternative solution? One that
> > is not just a sneaky way to try to circumvent the
> > posting limit?
> > 
> > Next time Judy gets so emotionally attached to a 
> > subject as to "post out" early, she can "take it 
> > to email." That is, she can create a private email
> > list in which she stays in touch with her loyal
> > codependents...uh...I mean fans, and feeds them
> > her devastating and brilliant putdowns. The members
> > of the private email list can then post them as if
> > they'd thought of these things themselves. Voila...
> > problem solved.
> > 
> > After all, it's not as if Judy hasn't thought of 
> > this herself. She has claimed several times in the
> > past that those who are...uh...less than fans do
> > this all the time, and that her "enemies" privately
> > email each other to exchange the best "get Judy"
> > strategies. So clearly she has no problem with the
> > idea in theory; after all, she thought it up.
> > 
> > I can even think of a timely name for this private
> > email list, "Stein Them" It's a reference to the 
> > current news story about the Iranian woman who has
> > been sentenced to death by stoning. In that country,
> > the offending woman is buried in the dirt up to her
> > neck and passersby are encouraged to throw stones
> > at her until she's dead. On the "Stein Them" list, 
> > lurkers and those who normally rely on Judy to come
> > up with their putdowns for them can pass along *her*
> > putdowns as if they were theirs, and effectively
> > "Stein" the transgressors instead of stoning them.
> > Much more humane.
> >
>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

[ditzyklanmail]

Hahahahaa!  the love saga continues.






From: WillyTex 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 13 July, 2010 7:44:21 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

  


So, it's all about Judy.

TurquoiseB:
> I'm seeing it as more of an exercise in codependent
> voyeurism than anything else. He misses Judy shout-
> ing "REEEAAALLLY STOOOPID" over and over.
> 
> After all, it can't be that she's sent him emails
> privately, because she's claimed that she's "away"
> until Friday, we all know that Judy Never Lies. 
> That's what she says, anyway. Then again, many 
> people here feel that Maharishi never lied, either. 
> 
> Might I suggest an alternative solution? One that
> is not just a sneaky way to try to circumvent the
> posting limit?
> 
> Next time Judy gets so emotionally attached to a 
> subject as to "post out" early, she can "take it 
> to email." That is, she can create a private email
> list in which she stays in touch with her loyal
> codependents...uh...I mean fans, and feeds them
> her devastating and brilliant putdowns. The members
> of the private email list can then post them as if
> they'd thought of these things themselves. Voila...
> problem solved.
> 
> After all, it's not as if Judy hasn't thought of 
> this herself. She has claimed several times in the
> past that those who are...uh...less than fans do
> this all the time, and that her "enemies" privately
> email each other to exchange the best "get Judy"
> strategies. So clearly she has no problem with the
> idea in theory; after all, she thought it up.
> 
> I can even think of a timely name for this private
> email list, "Stein Them" It's a reference to the 
> current news story about the Iranian woman who has
> been sentenced to death by stoning. In that country,
> the offending woman is buried in the dirt up to her
> neck and passersby are encouraged to throw stones
> at her until she's dead. On the "Stein Them" list, 
> lurkers and those who normally rely on Judy to come
> up with their putdowns for them can pass along *her*
> putdowns as if they were theirs, and effectively
> "Stein" the transgressors instead of stoning them.
> Much more humane.
>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

[ditzyklanmail]

Hahaha. 

Turq's:  "Co-Dependent voyeurism"   

That is really funny!

 I could just as easily take a side with you, Turq.
That would be just as fun.  LOL. 

So I am a male for Stein, because most here would think a man would side with 
her?

What if I was a female for Turq, would that give me double D's?








From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 13 July, 2010 1:03:22 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > On Behalf Of ditzyklanmail
> > 
> > > You mean I cannot forward an email to a post count under my user
> > > name? 
> > 
> > I don't understand the question.
> 
> The language is not at all clear, but it sounds like ditzy 
> wants to forward to FFL a privately emailed reply from Judy. 
> Or publicly reply to Judy's private email on FFL.

I'm seeing it as more of an exercise in codependent
voyeurism than anything else. He misses Judy shout-
ing "REEEAAALLLY STOOOPID" over and over.

After all, it can't be that she's sent him emails
privately, because she's claimed that she's "away"
until Friday, we all know that Judy Never Lies. 
That's what she says, anyway. Then again, many 
people here feel that Maharishi never lied, either. 

Might I suggest an alternative solution? One that
is not just a sneaky way to try to circumvent the
posting limit?

Next time Judy gets so emotionally attached to a 
subject as to "post out" early, she can "take it 
to email." That is, she can create a private email
list in which she stays in touch with her loyal
codependents...uh...I mean fans, and feeds them
her devastating and brilliant putdowns. The members
of the private email list can then post them as if
they'd thought of these things themselves. Voila...
problem solved.

After all, it's not as if Judy hasn't thought of 
this herself. She has claimed several times in the
past that those who are...uh...less than fans do
this all the time, and that her "enemies" privately
email each other to exchange the best "get Judy"
strategies. So clearly she has no problem with the
idea in theory; after all, she thought it up.

I can even think of a timely name for this private
email list, "Stein Them" It's a reference to the 
current news story about the Iranian woman who has
been sentenced to death by stoning. In that country,
the offending woman is buried in the dirt up to her
neck and passersby are encouraged to throw stones
at her until she's dead. On the "Stein Them" list, 
lurkers and those who normally rely on Judy to come
up with their putdowns for them can pass along *her*
putdowns as if they were theirs, and effectively
"Stein" the transgressors instead of stoning them.
Much more humane.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

[ditzyklanmail]

It, I meant to type, "It was not actually done." 






From: mainstream20016 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 12 July, 2010 9:28:25 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Alex Stanley
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:41 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits
> 
> 
> 
>   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> 
> [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  ] On Behalf Of Alex Stanley
> > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:07 PM
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> 
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits
> > 
> > 
> > > The language is not at all clear, but it sounds like ditzy wants
> > > to forward to FFL a privately emailed reply from Judy. Or publicly
> > > reply to Judy's private email on FFL. 
> > 
> > 
> > If either of those are what he wants to do, then that would be up
> > to Judy. He could ask her privately and then post them if she 
> > approves.
> 
> That would amount to Judy posting by proxy, with ditzy essentially giving
> away part of his allotment. I can see the potential for abuse. OTOH, few
> people post enough to need such a workaround. But, it's your call, so what
> the hell do I care?
> 
> 
> 
> I see what you mean and I agree with you. Forwarding emails from people
> whose allotment had expired would just be an end run around the posting
> limit. So if that's what you're asking ditzy, the answer is no.

Thanks, Alex and Rick for preventing posting by proxy.  The 50 post / week 
limit  
prevents FFL from generating more heat than light. 


>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

[ditzyklanmail]

Yes. I was not actually done, but the question itself is a good one to have 
thought about. : )






From: mainstream20016 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 12 July, 2010 9:28:25 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Alex Stanley
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:41 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits
> 
> 
> 
>   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  , "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> 
> [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
>  ] On Behalf Of Alex Stanley
> > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:07 PM
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> 
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits
> > 
> > 
> > > The language is not at all clear, but it sounds like ditzy wants
> > > to forward to FFL a privately emailed reply from Judy. Or publicly
> > > reply to Judy's private email on FFL. 
> > 
> > 
> > If either of those are what he wants to do, then that would be up
> > to Judy. He could ask her privately and then post them if she 
> > approves.
> 
> That would amount to Judy posting by proxy, with ditzy essentially giving
> away part of his allotment. I can see the potential for abuse. OTOH, few
> people post enough to need such a workaround. But, it's your call, so what
> the hell do I care?
> 
> 
> 
> I see what you mean and I agree with you. Forwarding emails from people
> whose allotment had expired would just be an end run around the posting
> limit. So if that's what you're asking ditzy, the answer is no.

Thanks, Alex and Rick for preventing posting by proxy.  The 50 post / week 
limit  
prevents FFL from generating more heat than light. 


>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

[ditzyklanmail]

Yes, I was kidding, but wanted to point out the potential of this. It is pretty 
funny, if it were to happen. I promise I will not participate in this type of 
behavior on this board. 






From: Rick Archer 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 12 July, 2010 5:48:28 PM
Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

  
From:FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:FairfieldLi f...@yahoogroups. com] 
On 
Behalf Of Alex Stanley
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:41 PM
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. 
> com] 
>On Behalf Of Alex Stanley
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:07 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits
> 
> 
> > The language is not at all clear, but it sounds like ditzy wants
> > to forward to FFL a privately emailed reply from Judy. Or publicly
> > reply to Judy's private email on FFL. 
> 
> 
> If either of those are what he wants to do, then that would be up
> to Judy. He could ask her privately and then post them if she 
> approves.

That would amount to Judy posting by proxy, with ditzy essentially giving away 
part of his allotment. I can see the potential for abuse. OTOH, few people post 
enough to need such a workaround. But, it's your call, so what the hell do I 
care?
 
I see what you mean and I agree with you. Forwarding emails from people whose 
allotment had expired would just be an end run around the posting limit. So if 
that’s what you’re asking ditzy, the answer is no.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

[ditzyklanmail]

Thanks! Now Judy will know if it really gets rough on this board and uses up 
all 
her post counts, she can rely on me to forward post for her!
Really I was only kidding, but could you imagine the kind of post war that 
could 
be created  doing this type of request, with the most brilliant responders 
limited to a post count and someone like me hanging around  like a wall flower 
or a nerdy type kid at a high school dance standing off to the side,  enjoying 
the battle of the most brilliant by participating in taking sides and keeping 
shut myself, sacrificing like a pawn in a chess game... LOL





From: Rick Archer 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 12 July, 2010 5:19:48 PM
Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

  
From:FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:FairfieldLi f...@yahoogroups. com] 
On 
Behalf Of Alex Stanley
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:07 PM
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits
 
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. 
> com] 
>On Behalf Of ditzyklanmail
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 4:17 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] A question about post limits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > You mean I cannot forward an email to a post count under my user
> > name? 
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t understand the question.

The language is not at all clear, but it sounds like ditzy wants to forward to 
FFL a privately emailed reply from Judy. Or publicly reply to Judy's private 
email on FFL. 

 
If either of those are what he wants to do, then that would be up to Judy. He 
could ask her privately and then post them if she approves.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

[ditzyklanmail]

"The language is not at all clear, but it sounds like ditzy wants to forward to 
FFL a privately emailed reply from Judy."

Yes, that was what I was referring to. If her post limit was met. I was trying 
to make a joke and also a compliment to Stein.

Please pardon the waste of posts for such a topic. LOL





From: Alex Stanley 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 12 July, 2010 5:07:13 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A question about post limits

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On 
>Behalf Of ditzyklanmail
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 4:17 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] A question about post limits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > You mean I cannot forward an email to a post count under my user
> > name? 
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t understand the question.

The language is not at all clear, but it sounds like ditzy wants to forward to 
FFL a privately emailed reply from Judy. Or publicly reply to Judy's private 
email on FFL. 



 

Re: [FairfieldLife] A question about post limits

[ditzyklanmail]

Oh gee, I was only having fun. I like reading Stein's posts because she punches 
it to the point. 

I didn't have much to say this week because I don't have much to write. Hahaha.
I thought the question was funny. I understand why there are post limits, I was 
surprised to see Stein near her limit so quickly. I, offering a sacrifice of my 
Avatar carcass to another user, I thought would humor some, because what do I 
really say here? LOL. 







From: Bhairitu 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 12 July, 2010 5:04:18 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] A question about post limits

  

ditzyklanmail wrote:
> I see Stein is creeping near the limit of posts and it is only Monday. 
> Is it allowed for her to send me her replies to other's silly statements and 
> I 

> cut and paste them sacrificing my post counts? or some of them?
> Does anyone understand what ditzy is saying here?

Why would you want to do this?


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] A question about post limits

[ditzyklanmail]

You mean I cannot forward an email to a post count under my user name? 






From: Rick Archer 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 12 July, 2010 4:11:20 PM
Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] A question about post limits

  
From:FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:FairfieldLi f...@yahoogroups. com] 
On 
Behalf Of ditzyklanmail
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 4:05 PM
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: [FairfieldLife] A question about post limits
 
  
I see Stein is creeping near the limit of posts and it is only Monday. 
Is it allowed for her to send me her replies to other's silly statements and I 
cut and paste them sacrificing my post counts? or some of them?
Does anyone understand what ditzy is saying here?
 
She’s welcome to email you privately, but you can’t “give” her some of your 
allotment of 50 weekly posts, if that’s what you’re asking.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Prof.TurquoiseA+B:SPAIN REIGNING PLAIN

[ditzyklanmail]

awe. somebody actually loves the turq! awe!






From: merudanda 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 11 July, 2010 10:26:09 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Prof.TurquoiseA+B:SPAIN REIGNING PLAIN

  
On behalf of the FFL servants of the poor Professor TurquoiseA+B!
Musicby Frederick Loewe (apologize)
Poor Professor TurquoiseA+B! Night and day
He slaves away! Oh, poor Professor TurquoiseA+B!
All day long On his feet; Up and down until he's numb;
Doesn't rest; Doesn't eat;
Doesn't touch a crumb! Poor Professor TurquoiseA+B!
Poor Professor TurquoiseA+B! On he plods Against all odds;
Oh, poor Professor TurquoiseA+B! Nine p.m. Ten p.m.
On through midnight ev'ry night.
One a.m. Two a.m. Three...! Quit, Professor TurquoiseA+B!
Quit, Professor TurquoiseA+B! Hear our plea
Or payday we Will quit, Professor TurquoiseA+B!
Ay not I, O not Ow, Pounding pounding in our reign.
Ay not I, O not Ow, Don't say "brain," say "Reign"...
 
 
He'll reign in Spain and plans to stay mainly in his reigning plain!
Judy by St.George, he's got it! By St. George, he's got it!
Now, once again where does he reign? TurquoiseA+B in Spain!
On his reigning plain! Judy And where he'll soggy reign?
TurquoiseA+B In Spain! In Spain! 
Let's sing together:
He'll reign in Spain and plans to stay mainly in his reigning plain 
He'll reign in Spain and plans to stay mainly in his reigning plain !Judy
In Hartford, Hereford, and Hampshire., Fairfield..?
TurquoiseA+B Hurricanes hardly happen.
How kind of you to let me come! Oh TurquoiseA+B
Now once again, where does he reign in Spain?
TurquoiseA+B on his reigning plain! The beach is his reigning plain! Judy
And where's that blasted reigning plain?
TurquoiseA+B In Spain! In Spain! 
Let's sing together:
 
He'll reign in Spain and plans to stay mainly in his reigning plain!
He'll reign in Spain and plans to stay mainly in his reigning plain!
 
My Fair Lady, sung by the professor's employees
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=hkUvp1hC_ J0
YouDid It (My Fair Lady - 1964) 
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=-RT3cx1b9ZM&feature=related
 TurquoiseB ! hope You're still "weinselig"( vinous)
salute

 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Chutzpah, Pirate-style

[ditzyklanmail]

Wow. Invincibility?





From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 10 July, 2010 6:15:26 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Chutzpah, Pirate-style

  
Swedish  Pirate Party intent on running the Pirate Bay from Parliament
You may remember that, back in May of this year, the  Swedish Pirate Party 
became the new ISP of the Pirate Bay. That  alone was not only surprising, but 
proved to be politically spectacular  in the rawest sense of the word. Now the 
Pirate Party wants to take  their stand even further, and plans to use a 
section 
of the Swedish  Constitution to allow them to host the seemingly indefatigable 
TPB from inside Parliament.
The Party announced  their plan in a blog post at their official site on 
Friday. 
They  state that while there shouldn't be a need for such drastic action, that  
hosting the torrent site from within the walls of Swedish Parliament  would 
carry "an important symbolic value." There's not much doubt that  they're right 
about symbolism there.
The Party references a section of the Swedish Constitution that  protects MP's 
from prosecution if they're acting in accordance with  their political mandate. 
In this case, hosting the Pirate Bay would not  only fall under that wide 
umbrella, but would also provide a measure of  immunity that would be much 
harder to crack than ever before.
Whether or not the Party will be able to pull this off hinges on the  coming 
September elections, which as TorrentFreak  points out, currently shows a 4% 
gap 
that needs to be filled for  the party to get a seat. Given their success last 
year in winning  a seat in the EU Parliament, I'd say they've got a decent 
chance.

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque

[ditzyklanmail]

No disrepect to nabby, but maybe Jar Jar Binks could be a more suitable 
username 
for nabby. : ) 







From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 10 July, 2010 11:18:36 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robes of Silk, Feet of Clay/Judith Bourque

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  
> 
> > It's an unconvincing get out clause so they can still kid
> > themselves they were in the presence of someone as holy as 
> > he claimed.
> 
> "Holy" to a much greater degree than you can imagine. He, 
> with the help of the Masters of Wisdom, transformed this 
> Planet from ignorance to Light. He was the soldier the 
> Masters of Wisdom picked for this job. And he succeeded.

Wow. That sounds really neat, Nabby. And you knew this
guy? That's like getting to hang with The Silver Surfer.
Can we touch the hem of your garment?

:-)


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Defense of Marriage Act ruled unconstitutional

[ditzyklanmail]

What confuses me, which is pretty easy to, there is no federal law requiring a 
marriage license or marriage claim. So I do not understand why federal has 
anything to do with marriage.






From: do.rflex 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 9 July, 2010 11:08:05 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Defense of Marriage Act ruled unconstitutional

  


Defense of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional by U.S. JudgeJuly 9 (Bloomberg) 
-- The U.S. Defense of  Marriage Act, which defines the institution as being 
between a man and a  woman, was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge. 

U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro in Boston  yesterday decided that Congress 
exceeded its authority in legislating  the issue and that the measure infringed 
states' rights to regulate  marriage.
"In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual  orientation that differentiates a 
married couple entitled to federal  marriage- based benefits from one not so 
entitled. And this court can  conceive of no way in which such a difference 
might be relevant to the  provision of the benefits at issue," Tauro said in 
one 
of two rulings  against the U.S. he issued yesterday.
The marriage-defining act, popularly known as  DOMA, was signed into law by 
President Bill Clinton in 1996. As of 2003,  it affected 1,138 federal programs 
in which marital status was a factor  in eligibility for benefits, the judge 
said, citing a 2004 report by  the federal government.
Tracy Schmaler, a U.S. Justice Department  spokeswoman, said by e-mail that 
officials are reviewing the decision.
Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to  permit same- sex marriages in May 
2004, after its highest court ruled  that gays and lesbians had a 
constitutional 
right to wed. The state sued  the U.S. over the act last year.
`Second-Class Marriages'
It is unconstitutional "for the federal  government to decide who is married 
and 
to create a system of first- and  second-class marriages," state Attorney 
General Martha Coakley said in a  statement.
Coakley, a Democrat who in February lost to  Republican Scott Brown in a race 
to 
fill the U.S. Senate seat of the  late Edward M. Kennedy, said the state was 
"pleased" by yesterday's  decisions.
Tauro issued a parallel ruling in a separate case  filed by seven same-sex 
couples and three survivors of same-sex  partners, all of whom were married in 
Massachusetts. The Justice  Department had asked the court to dismiss both 
cases, arguing that the  act was "consistent with prevailing equal protection 
case law."
"DOMA reflects what Congress believed was an  appropriate response to this 
ongoing debate in the states," preserving  for them the ability to retain the 
one-man, one-woman definition or  alter it, as in states that recognize same 
sex 
unions, the government  said in a filing with Tauro last year.
Iowa, Connecticut
Courts in Iowa and Connecticut also have ruled to  permit same-sex marriage. 
Vermont's legislature legalized the weddings  last year, overriding a 
gubernatorial veto, while voters in Maine  overturned a legislative fiat in 
November.
California voters chose to ban the practice, a  measure that has since been 
challenged in an as-yet-undecided federal  court trial in San Francisco.
Tauro said he agreed with Massachusetts that the  law forced the commonwealth 
"to engage in invidious discrimination  against its own citizens in order to 
receive and retain federal funds."
The state's case is Commonwealth of Massachusetts  v. United States Department 
of Health and Human Services, 09-cv-11156,  and the couples' case is Gill v. 
Office of Personnel Management, 09-  cv-10309, U.S. District Court, District of 
Massachusetts (Boston).
http://www.business week.com/ news/2010- 07-09/defense- of-marriage- act-ruled- 
unconstitutional -by-u-s-judge. html 



 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex

[ditzyklanmail]

The title of this song is actually, "You are Love."  (someone made a mistake on 
title of the youtube post.)
Dedicated to Stein, because she has reached her limit this week. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFhAzZv-Dsg&feature=related






From: yifuxero 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 8 July, 2010 10:05:43 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex

  
Don't keep us in the dark!  What are the teachings of the Avatar?  What are his 
techniques? Thx.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
>
> Thank you for the reminder. The avatar got all caught up and tangled by 
> choice. 
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: nablusoss1008 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 8 July, 2010 2:10:35 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
> >
> > I do believe the avatar referred to "the avatar."
> >  How is "the avatar," claiming to be an avatar?
> > nablusoss must have a pickle in his pocket to ask the avatar to "enlighten 
>us." 
>
> >
> > Strawmen come in many forms. How can a strawman have a story?
> 
> "Avatar who cuts and pastes someone else's quote and blames another...Come on 
> chicken doo doo, why do you call 
> 
> 
> this avatar
> 
> that represents posts a fool?
> I demand an apology."
> 
> An Avatar needs no apology ;-) Me thinks you are confused.
>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex

[ditzyklanmail]

Thank you for the reminder. The avatar got all caught up and tangled by choice. 






From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 8 July, 2010 2:10:35 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
>
> I do believe the avatar referred to "the avatar."
>  How is "the avatar," claiming to be an avatar?
> nablusoss must have a pickle in his pocket to ask the avatar to "enlighten 
> us." 
>
> Strawmen come in many forms. How can a strawman have a story?

"Avatar who cuts and pastes someone else's quote and blames another...Come on 
chicken doo doo, why do you call 


this avatar

that represents posts a fool?
I demand an apology."

An Avatar needs no apology ;-) Me thinks you are confused.




 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex

[ditzyklanmail]

I do believe the avatar referred to "the avatar."
 How is "the avatar," claiming to be an avatar?
nablusoss must have a pickle in his pocket to ask the avatar to "enlighten us." 
Strawmen come in many forms. How can a strawman have a story?









From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 8 July, 2010 1:17:46 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
>
> old fashioned, would be you. as for you, an old fart is an old fart.
>  but since I must enlighten you with help of the world wide web and wiki, an 
> avatar is:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(computing)

We already know this stuff. You claimed to be an Avatar in a previous post, I 
simple wanted to know how it feels, and how it came about :-)
Please enlighten us about this theme, I'm sure many here would be interested to 
hear your story.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex

[ditzyklanmail]

old fashioned, would be you. as for you, an old fart is an old fart.
 but since I must enlighten you with help of the world wide web and wiki, an 
avatar is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(computing)





From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 8 July, 2010 12:11:51 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
>
> Nablusoss1008 Avatar who cuts and pastes someone else's quote and blames 
> another...Come on chicken doo doo, why do you call this avatar that 
> represents 

> posts a fool?
> I demand an apology. 

So you're an Avatar ? Would you like to elaborate about your "status". To me 
you 
seem like a good oldfashinoed fool, but I might be wrong. Please enlighten us.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Polygamy in the USA

[ditzyklanmail]

Depends on the definition of wife.
Depends on the definition of legal.  lol.




From: WillyTex 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 8 July, 2010 9:20:56 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Polygamy in the USA

  


> Should polygamy be legalized in America?
>
ditzyklanmail:
> Hell NO! because I would end up being 
> everyone's wife. lol.
> 
So, you'd rather be everyone's 'illegal' 
wife? LOL!


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex

[ditzyklanmail]

Yes. I agree.  I have been attempting to sing  bass-baritone all morning. lol.






From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 8 July, 2010 9:19:18 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex

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

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh9WayN7R-s

Oh, man. Chills up the spine. What a song. What a voice.
What a mensch.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Polygamy in the USA

[ditzyklanmail]

Hell NO!   because I would end up being everyone's wife. lol.





From: John 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 8 July, 2010 1:15:23 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Polygamy in the USA

  
Should polygamy be legalized in America?  With gays and lesbians getting 
recognized for their rights, why can't live their lives as they see as part of 
the American lifestyle?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ASjmjHMnY4&feature=related


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex

[ditzyklanmail]

That was quite an entertaining response. Thank you for playing along.  I am 
honored that you took the time, Sir Nobody. : )
Humbleness, is what I envision as a key word from your post. Humbleness is what 
I think you are suggesting to those who are involved with attempting to expand 
the practice to many other people who could use it. 


All is fair, I can give a vague truth of my standing. I am happy doing TM for 
well over 15 years.  For me, it is helpful and helps make me feel good. I have 
not chased other practices or saints or gurus, only because I have not had the 
urge to do such, not because someone told me not to.  I learned to meditate 
because it presented itself at the right time in my life, without the prodding 
of friends outside of my family. 


 I am attempting to understand why some say people should distance themselves 
from others who may appear "negative," but to me, "negative," is also part of 
the electronic flow and it can't work without it. 


Your response was not negative.

On question 3, you mention a couple of techniques or practices, I am not 
familiar with. I was referring to the the actual meaning of the words, 
self-inquiry.  Your response using the word, "mindfulness," is beautiful. That 
is a wonderful description and I appreciate it. 


On question 6.  Your response sends hilarious, giggles!
 How come  I feel the Maharishi, (if his presence is knowing of what your 
response is), is  LHAO at your free advice? (I remember a lecture online the 
Maharishi gave saying something like, one day the movement will be a very small 
handful of people.)  



I posted the below questions to help show some other people that all people who 
practice TM are not fanatics or followers or cultist idiots. They just meditate 
and stay away from the groupies and worshipper type perceptions.   (Like the 
nabby guy who spits out accusations with no foundation.)  lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh9WayN7R-s

Thank you from another nobody. 





 







From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 7 July, 2010 11:22:11 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
>
> Mr. Turquoise, 
> 
> You make some valid points of opinion, if opinion is valid 
> in any way and there are are any points involved.
> 
> May I ask you a few questions that you may answer to share 
> with all of us on FFL and the whole internet data machine?

I really don't understand why, because I am essentially
a nobody and my opinion counts for nothing. But out of 
a sense of fun I'll play.  :-)

> If you wish to express a response, below are the questions:
> 
> 1)  Do you feel TM gave you satisfaction?

An interesting question, one that I would have to say 
relates to my "standards." In the beginning, when my
standards were low for what constitutes "spiritual
experience" or even a good meditation experience, I
found it satisfying. Like many, I found that sense
of satisfaction to have "plateaued out" within a few
years, but I hung in there thinking maybe it would
"spark up" again. I even went to a 6-month TMSP course
hoping that would jumpstart things again. On that 
course I flew the first day and was bored with it
by the second. Definitely not worth the money paid
for the experience IMO, so I left the TMO shortly
after returning from that course.

I kept meditating TM-style out of habit for about a 
year, then found some other styles of meditation that
seemed to suit me better. I have practiced them since,
with no "plateau effect" ever noticeable. They provide
ongoing satisfaction.

> 2) The experience of the journey with TM in the beginning of 
> your venture, had this given you any satisfaction at the time 
> of the journey (during your early stage)?

I had great fun at times in the TM movement; I left 
when it stopped being fun, or producing any noticeable
results.

> 3) Do you feel TM which from my understanding, is used to 
> expand one's horizon and the idea of self inquiry go hand 
> in hand?

I am the wrong person to ask. I have never really
practiced "self inquiry" as touted by Advaita or
Neo-Advaita, and don't think much of it. I consider
it a benevolent form of moodmaking. If you were to
ask me whether TM could go hand in hand with some-
thing like mindfulness (with which I am familiar),
I would say yes; I think the two would go well
together.

> 4) Do you think a routine in one's life leads to a better 
> experience overall for the mind/body experience as related 
> to slowing down the aging process of stress? 

"Routine" is valuable for some, not as much for others
IMO. And at different times in their lives or path. I
can see routine ("gotta" meditate twice a day) being
valuable for someone j

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex

[ditzyklanmail]

Nablusoss1008 Avatar who cuts and pastes someone else's quote and blames 
another...Come on chicken doo doo, why do you call this avatar that represents 
posts a fool?
I demand an apology. 





From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 7 July, 2010 12:18:12 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex

  
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
> >
>> 
> Nope. I find it often amusing, never frustrating (because I'm
> not part of it), and largely irrelevant to the planet and its
> future. 

I don't see it having any significant role in that
> future.

I think thats an interesting observation because it's so silly, and it says 
ton's about the forces Maharishi had to struggel with within His own Movement 
to 
create The Age of Enlightenment. 


Having invited everybody in on the the ride He knew He would have to allow 
idiots like the above on board.

His Divine Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi initiated the Dawn of the Age of 
Enlightenment, and He succeeded. 


Without the help of fools like "carc108"


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex

[ditzyklanmail]

A hall monitor?  
Some one referring the address of avatar as a fool to ask questions? 
 If questions appear foolish, how does dissing them make you? 
The avatar did not attack anyone. The avatar does not have the same views as 
the 
turquoise fellow,  but respects the views fully. nor does the avatar diss 
TM. 

Why do you wish to call a fool?






From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 7 July, 2010 12:18:12 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex

  
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
> >
>> 
> Nope. I find it often amusing, never frustrating (because I'm
> not part of it), and largely irrelevant to the planet and its
> future. 

I don't see it having any significant role in that
> future.

I think thats an interesting observation because it's so silly, and it says 
ton's about the forces Maharishi had to struggel with within His own Movement 
to 
create The Age of Enlightenment. 


Having invited everybody in on the the ride He knew He would have to allow 
idiots like the above on board.

His Divine Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi initiated the Dawn of the Age of 
Enlightenment, and He succeeded. 


Without the help of fools like "carc108"


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex

[ditzyklanmail]

and another thing, mr nablusoss cut and pasted what the ditz did not type. That 
is fraud.






From: nablusoss1008 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 7 July, 2010 12:18:12 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Castalia Complex

  
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
> >
>> 
> Nope. I find it often amusing, never frustrating (because I'm
> not part of it), and largely irrelevant to the planet and its
> future. 

I don't see it having any significant role in that
> future.

I think thats an interesting observation because it's so silly, and it says 
ton's about the forces Maharishi had to struggel with within His own Movement 
to 
create The Age of Enlightenment. 


Having invited everybody in on the the ride He knew He would have to allow 
idiots like the above on board.

His Divine Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi initiated the Dawn of the Age of 
Enlightenment, and He succeeded. 


Without the help of fools like "carc108"


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Inaccessibility

[ditzyklanmail]

Bravo bravo, excellent post. 

The invisible man reminds me: tonight is the opening of Predators! 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u8vZwvP57Y

Hunter and invisible!



From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 6 July, 2010 3:34:02 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Inaccessibility

  
For Don and others, a short illustrated treatise on the opposite of the Look At 
Me I'm A Big Fish In A Small Pond-ism so often seen here, a homage to the 
Castanedan art of inaccessibility, and a reminder of the value of keeping your 
ego in your pants.

First, find the fish:
http://illusionsetc .blogspot. com/2005/ 06/spot-fish- optical-illusion .html 

Next, find the person:
http://visualfunhou se.com/uncategor ized/the- invisible- man-optical- 
illusion. 
html 


Third, the theory:
"The art of a hunter is to become inaccessible. To be inaccessible means that 
you touch the world around you sparingly. You don't expose yourself to the 
power 
of the wind unless it is mandatory. You don't use and squeeze people until they 
have shriveled to nothing, especially the people you love.

"To be unavailable means that you deliberately avoid exhausting yourself and 
others. It means that you are not hungry and desperate.

"A hunter knows he will lure game into his traps over and over again, so he 
doesn't worry. To worry is to become accessible, unwittingly accessible. And 
once you worry you cling to anything out of desperation; and once you cling you 
are bound to get exhausted or to exhaust whoever or whatever you are clinging 
to.

"To be inaccessible does not mean to hide or to be secretive. It doesn't mean 
that you cannot deal with people either. A hunter uses his world sparingly and 
with tenderness regardless of whether the world might be things, or plants, or 
animals, or people, or power. A hunter deals intimately with his world and yet 
he is inaccessible to that same world. He is inaccessible because he's not 
squeezing his world out of shape. He taps it lightly, stays for as long as he 
needs to, and then swiftly moves away leaving hardly a mark."
-- Carlos Castaneda, Journey To Ixtlan

Finally, how -- and more important why -- not to be seen:
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=ltmMJntSfQI 



 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The "highest goal in life" as IDEA

[ditzyklanmail]

Don't mess with Judy. She makes very valid points. I agree.






From: WillyTex 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 6 July, 2010 12:50:31 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The "highest goal in life" as IDEA

  


> > If you can't acknowledge that he lied about the two
> > points I mentioned above, there's no point in my
> > discussing MAV with you any further, no. That failure 
> > indicates a mind completely closed to reason, 
> > evidence, and logic...
> >
Hugo:
> Hmm, yes that sounds like me.
>
You just got waxed real good by Judy! Can I add your name 
to the Judy waxed list? You had a chance to make your
points, but you just can't bring yourself to admit that
Judy was right about Skolnick lying on Usenet. Go figure.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Ringo at 70

[ditzyklanmail]

 the vatican is up there with high moral standards. 






From: John 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 7 July, 2010 12:11:53 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Ringo at 70

  
Can you believe it? and he's still at it.  He's become a legend in his own time 
that even the Vatican has forgiven the Beatles for whatever sins they've 
committed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/arts/music/06ringo.html?_r=1


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] The Castalia Complex

[ditzyklanmail]

Mr. Turquoise, 

You make some valid points of opinion, if opinion is valid in any way and there 
are are any points involved.

May I ask you a few questions that you may answer to share with all of us on 
FFL 
and the whole internet data machine?

If you wish to express a response, below are the questions:

1)  Do you feel TM gave you satisfaction?

2) The experience of the journey with TM in the beginning of your venture,  had 
this given you any satisfaction at the time of the journey (during your early 
stage)?

3) Do you feel TM which from my understanding,  is used to expand one's horizon 
and the idea of self inquiry go hand in hand?

4) Do you think a routine in one's life leads to a better experience overall 
for 
the mind/body experience as related to slowing down the aging process of 
stress?   


5) As to question number 4, do you think a better experience overall  with 
spontaneity also leads to slowing down the aging process, if one wishes to live 
a happy life, fulfilled with all which encompasses, includes less stress on 
others in our little bubbles and the society around one? (for example of stress 
leading behavior, if one is on a crack cocaine diet, he/she in their element 
may 
produce situations that endanger others or cost others misery because of bad 
choices made on the crack.)


6) What would you do, if all of a sudden, higher ups in the TM community (those 
with the money making decisions and directional non profit representatives) 
approached you and offered you a paid consulting opportunity to help make the 
TM 
organization more acceptable by the 99% of the world's people who may see some 
of the behaviors as you mention below as "weird"?  (note that rock stars and 
hollywood types are put up there in the light, even with their strange 
lifestyles, lack of morals or bedtime schedules, but hey, they appear to be 
happy, have access to worldly pleasures like eating food, a roof over their 
heads and clothes to wear, so maybe that is why they are allowed to stand forth 
and advertise for the TM organization.) (yes, the parenthesis items in  
question 
number 6 are meant to sway opinion of your answer.)

7) In your opinion, why would someone like you, who put many years, as it 
appears into working with the TM organization, place you any less than those 
mentioned in parenthesis in question number 6? 


8) Say if Hagelin, Lynch and others were to start asking questions  and shared 
those questions with the 99% other's  who may  think TM is weird, because 
inquiry is what the idea of meditation helps create when one's mind is rested, 
would that help the overall PR's of the TM organization?

9) Do you hate the TM?

 These questions are not attempting to stone anyone for opinion or belief or 
experience.   If anyone wishes to add to this list, and understands where I 
appear to be going with these type of questions, please add your insight. Keep 
it basic, for those with smaller minds in the big fish eats the little fish 
world do not wish to be eaten and have a right to do so.  Enlightenment is not 
about competition, squashing, totalitarianism, fascism, etc. : )

Thank you for you either ignoring or sharing with this response. It is all 
good. 








From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 6 July, 2010 5:18:21 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Castalia Complex

  
For me, much of Hermann Hesse's work does not "hold up" over
time. I go back to reread much of it and it's just too...uh...
German for me. Meaning pretentious and almost New Age before
that term was invented, an attempt to create "pop" versions 
of Eastern concepts before fully understanding them. 

But one book -- considered his masterwork, and cited as one
of the primary reasons for his Nobel Prize -- "holds up." It's
probably because it was his last book, because he spent 12
years writing it, and because he saved it until the end of
his life, when some of these Eastern concepts that fascinated
him had had time to "gel." That book is "Magister Ludi," also
known as "The Glass Bead Game."

I mention it because I just pulled it off the bookshelf as one
of the books I'm taking with me this summer to Amsterdam, but
also because a major theme of the book seems relevant to FFL
and to the TM organization. The book is set in an unspecified
future, within the cloistered walls of Castalia. In this monas-
tery the intellectuals and "spiritual" types have holed up for
centuries, devoting themselves to the life of the mind, and
rejecting technology and the relative world outside their walls.

And that's the theme that I think is relevant to the TMO -- the
"down side" of the cloistered life. The book is written as a 
biography of Joseph Knecht, who joins this reclusive order as 
a young student and so flourishes in it that he becomes
Magister Ludi -- literally "master of the game" -- the high
lama or master of the order. Only trouble is, Knecht has begun
to realize that the intel

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belated July 4th congrats on America's independence from Spain

[ditzyklanmail]

Your gonna make me round up that jesus youtube to add to the stimulation! 






From: Mike Dixon 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 5 July, 2010 6:27:57 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belated July 4th congrats on America's 
independence from Spain

  
Bet'cha Parvati like those French ticklers!




____
 From: ditzyklanmail 
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 2:19:44 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belated July 4th congrats on America's 
independence from Spain

  
That is pretty weird.






 From: Mike Dixon 
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Mon, 5 July, 2010 12:54:05 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belated July 4th congrats on America's 
independence from Spain

  
Now you've got me weirded-out, thinking of all the different condoms that could 
be used on Shiva Lingams!





 From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 10:47:07 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belated July 4th congrats on America's 
independence 
from Spain

  
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> Now, now, Barry. Let's not hurt the self esteem of all 
> those graduates out there. They don't have time to study 
> history or geography. Learning how to put condoms on a 
> banana is very time consuming which requires patience 
> and a lot of practice.

Now you've done it. You've got me imagining
classes of high school students putting condoms 
on bananas. Too weird, even for me.

I wonder if in India they teach the students by 
having them put condoms on shiva lingams?

And while my imagination is running wild, I find
myself wondering whether an Indian Freudian psych-
iatrist would believe that all women suffer from 
shiva lingam envy?

:-)

Just to  show you, however, that this poll may be
more representative than Americans would like to
believe, here is a page from a science textbook 
called "Science 4 Students," written by and used
in classes at Bob Jones University:

http://pbh2. blogspot. com/2010/ 07/electricty- courtesy- of-bob-jones. html

>  _ _ __
> From: TurquoiseB 
> To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 10:07:24 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Belated July 4th congrats on America's independence 
>from Spain
> 
> 26% of U.S. don't know who we declared independence from: Marist poll
>  How dumb are we?
> 
> Apparently, pretty dumb.
> 
> At least according to a new Marist poll, which says 26% of people in this 
>country don't know that the U.S. declared its independence from Great Britain.
> 
> That includes 20% who were unsure and 6% who thought the U.S. separated from 
>another nation.
> 
> So what country do people think the U.S. achieved its independence from?
> 
> Among the countries mentioned were France, China, Japan, Mexico and Spain.
> 
> The poll surveyed 1,004 Americans in June and had 3% margin of error.
> 
> But hey, even our founding fathers made mistakes.
> 
> Preservation scientists recently discovered Thomas Jefferson had originally 
>referred to the American public as "subjects," then changed it to read 
>"citizens" before the ink dried.
> 
> Oops. 
> 
> [ from the NY Daily News  ]
>





 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The "highest goal in life" as IDEA

[ditzyklanmail]

I think they think you are hot.






From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 5 July, 2010 2:48:56 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The "highest goal in life" as IDEA

  
Can you say, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

I knew you could.

I'm sure you and Barry will be very happy together.



(For the record, I'm not and never have been a "press
rep for the Maha," paid or otherwise.)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Don Miller"  wrote:
>
> Being a new person and not knowing or caring about any of this or the real 
>issues behind it all, and not giving a rat's ass to study any of it, I would 
>like to venture my unbiased feelings.  None of this is written as a joke.  If 
>I 
>make a joke it is usually just a one-liner and pertainate.
> 
> That is a very good observation about self importance Barry, that self 
>importance blinds each one of us from seeing the world clearly and innocently, 
>depending on how much we cling to it.  Of course you could still be guilty of 
>everything that Judy accuses you of, and of the beliefs that others accuse you 
>of.
> 
> My intuition is that in spite of any false beliefs that you may or may not 
>hold, and in spite of any supposed sins, your energy body is the most clear 
>and 
>untangled here of regular posters, and that is reflected in a certain verbal 
>agility.  Have another orange juice.
> 
> The energy body of Judy is an absolute mess, aside from the voracity or lack 
>thereof of her statements.  She may be right or she may be wrong, but her 
>defensiveness and revealing of a huge ego are way out of proportion and 
>blocking 
>her from seeing the forest from herself.  At least two major fiber bundles 
>wrap 
>up and over her right shoulder and reach all the way around to her back, 
>indicating a rigid and blind adherence to a belief system.  I would not want 
>to 
>be in her position as a press rep for the Maha, no matter how much they paid 
>me, 
>because of all the negative attention stirred up by so many people whacky 
>people, who are themselves a total mess, and this can wreak havoc on the 
>energy 
>body. 
>
> 
> On the other hand if the person has such a major challenge and difficulty in 
>life, and overcomes it, then it can be the making of the finest tempered 
>warrior 
>spirit, par excellance.  But I would not wish such difficulty on myself, even 
>if 
>there was great payoff in coming out stronger.
> 
> But first of all Judy, you need to take some immediate action to put your 
>energy body in order.  I'll let you know if I come up with anything you should 
>do, but I think it involves water.  Perhaps meditating in a warm pool once in 
>a 
>while would do it.  (Opps!!! That would be off the program!!)
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Gonna take another hit at this one because it's so
> > > utterly despicable.
> > 
> > In the above, replace "Gonna" with "Gotta."
> > Predictable.  :-)
> > 
> > All I'm sayin' is that there are only two 
> > people on FFL who repeat the phrase "Go 
> > back and read my posts on alt.m.t." as if
> > it were a holy mantra, and as if there were
> > some perceived benefit for other people 
> > in doing this. Those two people are Judy
> > Stein and Willytex.
> > 
> > Both trot out their past, and the imagined
> > importance of it, the way some people show
> > off photos of their kids. It's like "my 
> > posts on alt.m.t. and FFL" is a line item
> > on their CV.
> > 
> > And the only line item.
> > 
> > Andrew Skolnick, whatever his occasional
> > excesses, could point to any number of real
> > achievements and awards as his CV. Some can
> > point only to a series of posts made to two
> > obscure Internet forums read at any given
> > time in history by fewer than 100 people as 
> > if they are not only accomplishments, but 
> > *such* accomplishments that the authors feel 
> > that other people should "go back and read 
> > them" over and over and over. 
> > 
> > Just sayin'...doncha get the feeling some-
> > times that *they* go back and read their
> > own posts over and over and over, the way
> > other old people pull out photos of their
> > kids or look at the awards on their mantle-
> > pieces over and over and over and feel all
> > nostalgic for the glorious past? It's not
> > the "lost in the past" thang that strikes
> > me as odd, merely the utter insignificance 
> > of the past they're lost in.
> > 
> > Add to this the INTENT of literally every
> > such call to "go back and read my posts" --
> > an attempt to diss someone and get others
> > to "pile on" and join in dissing them --
> > and IMO you've got a couple of exemplary
> > examples of the 30-year benefits of the
> > TM technique. A legacy to be proud of.
> >
>


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belated July 4th congrats on America's independence from Spain

[ditzyklanmail]

That is pretty weird.






From: Mike Dixon 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 5 July, 2010 12:54:05 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belated July 4th congrats on America's 
independence from Spain

  
Now you've got me weirded-out, thinking of all the different condoms that could 
be used on Shiva Lingams!





 From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 10:47:07 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belated July 4th congrats on America's 
independence 
from Spain

  
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> Now, now, Barry. Let's not hurt the self esteem of all 
> those graduates out there. They don't have time to study 
> history or geography. Learning how to put condoms on a 
> banana is very time consuming which requires patience 
> and a lot of practice.

Now you've done it. You've got me imagining
classes of high school students putting condoms 
on bananas. Too weird, even for me.

I wonder if in India they teach the students by 
having them put condoms on shiva lingams?

And while my imagination is running wild, I find
myself wondering whether an Indian Freudian psych-
iatrist would believe that all women suffer from 
shiva lingam envy?

:-)

Just to show  you, however, that this poll may be
more representative than Americans would like to
believe, here is a page from a science textbook 
called "Science 4 Students," written by and used
in classes at Bob Jones University:

http://pbh2. blogspot. com/2010/ 07/electricty- courtesy- of-bob-jones. html

>  _ _ __
> From: TurquoiseB 
> To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 10:07:24 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Belated July 4th congrats on America's independence 
>from Spain
> 
> 26% of U.S. don't know who we declared independence from: Marist poll
> How dumb are we?
> 
> Apparently, pretty dumb.
> 
> At least according to a new Marist poll, which says 26% of people in this 
>country don't know that the U.S. declared its independence from Great Britain.
> 
> That includes 20% who were unsure and 6% who thought the U.S. separated from 
>another nation.
> 
> So what country do people think the U.S. achieved its independence from?
> 
> Among the countries mentioned were France, China, Japan, Mexico and Spain.
> 
> The poll surveyed 1,004 Americans in June and had 3% margin of error.
> 
> But hey, even our founding fathers made mistakes.
> 
> Preservation scientists recently discovered Thomas Jefferson had originally 
>referred to the American public as "subjects," then changed it to read 
>"citizens" before the ink dried.
> 
> Oops. 
> 
> [ from the NY Daily News  ]
>



 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Does anyone else feel it?

[ditzyklanmail]

Honestly, my conversations with people in the real world of physical human 
touch 
distance experience or telecommunications (live in person haha) and their 
response or my response and their conversations on all spontaneously occurring 
situations between the event of the lunar and solar extravaganza so far, this 
cycle that is transiting,  appear to be quite pleasant.   

What may have been written here by me during this transit,  on this forum that 
which may appear in a "negative order" is only for entertainment purposes only. 







From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 3 July, 2010 10:57:58 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Does anyone else feel it?

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "It's just a ride" 
 wrote:
>
> Ben Collins first attributed it to the 2 week window between
> the lunar eclipse and the solar eclipse.  I said no, that's
> not it.  He agreed. There's something happening at the level
> of consciousness that is putting people at dis-ease.  I have
> emails from many countries were people are telling me that
> the former friendly people in the shops are now nasty.  I
> experience this in those around me.  I don't need any of the
> Thalmud we don't see the world as it is but as we are.

Interesting. I went on an excursion of sorts a couple days
ago to take care of some routine business, and in the course
of it had occasion to interact with one perfectly ordinary but
quite extraordinarily nice person after another. They included
an administrative assistant, a professional, a guy who runs a
diner, a customer in the diner, a taxi driver, a clerk, and
a train conductor.

Each of the interactions was so exceptionally pleasant and
rewarding, any one of them would have been the highlight of
a regular day. By the time I got home, I was almost dizzy
with the accumulated good feelings.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: FFL as Tabloid: The joy of the lowest common denominator

[ditzyklanmail]

Hahahahaaha!  Durga speaks! 






From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 3 July, 2010 1:56:32 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: FFL as Tabloid: The joy of the lowest common 
denominator

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Don Miller  wrote:
>
> When it is desired that a mixed and diverse group of humans
> share a house, usually a few end up feeling a little
> uncomfortable with others (not me btw), but this can stifle
> optimal communication, like when the kids are making a
> ruckus to where it is a challenge to hear ones own thoughts.Â
> The solution is to make several differient rooms.  The kids
> for example are not excluded to their rooms, but on the whole
> the factions with differient interests tend to stay more in
> their areas, ideas get a chance to be better developed, and
> most particulary one does not waste as much time in areas
> where one is not so interested.
> 
> Look sites like this through Yuku for example.  They are
> free and supposedly easy for non-computer-nerds to learn
> to set up. http://theplaceofnopity.yuku.com/directory  
> Possibly one hitch though would be if you could transfer 
> your present domain to this account, and I think that you
> can.

Before you spend a lot of time making helpful suggestions,
it would be good if you recognized that FairfieldLife
isn't a "blog site," as you referred to it in a previous
post; it's a Yahoo Group, one of many thousands hosted by
Yahoo.com. It has no "domain" of its own.

But really, if you can't manage to hide your contempt for
the "kids" and "shadow creature trolls" on FFL, perhaps
it would be good if you set up your own account for those
you consider "adults" on Yuku.com. That way you could
develop your ideas without the "challenge" of trying to
hear your own thoughts and avoid wasting time in areas
that are not of your interest.

And take Barry with you, please.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The "highest goal in life" as IDEA

[ditzyklanmail]

I have an ear to ear smile right now because this mail group is so entertaining!






From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 3 July, 2010 2:20:57 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The "highest goal in life" as IDEA

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Don Miller  wrote:
>
> do ya feel dizzy?

No, do ya?

If you want to talk to me, I'm afraid you're going to have
to descend to my level and make yourself clear to my limited
understandng. I'm not interested in playing games puzzling
out what you're trying to communicate.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: FFL as Tabloid: The joy of the lowest common denominator

[ditzyklanmail]

Oh, silly...that is not very Indian family! 






From: Don Miller 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 3 July, 2010 1:29:21 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: FFL as Tabloid: The joy of the lowest common 
denominator

  
When it is desired that a mixed and diverse group of humans share a house, 
usually a few end up feeling a little uncomfortable with others (not me btw), 
but this can stifle optimal communication, like when the kids are making a 
ruckus to where it is a challenge to hear ones own thoughts.  The solution is 
to 
make several differient rooms.  The kids for example are not excluded to their 
rooms, but on the whole the factions with differient interests tend to stay 
more 
in their areas, ideas get a chance to be better developed, and most particulary 
one does not waste as much time in areas where one is not so interested.
 
Look sites like this through Yuku for example.  They are free and supposedly 
easy for non-computer- nerds to learn to set up. http://theplaceofno pity.yuku. 
com/directory  Possibly one hitch though would be if you could transfer your 
present domain to this account, and I think that you can.





 From: ditzyklanmail 
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, July 3, 2010 8:18:52 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: FFL as Tabloid: The joy of the lowest common 
denominator

  
Could it be Turquoise, strawman, is behaving like a carp? 







 From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sat, 3 July, 2010 7:57:03 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: FFL as Tabloid: The joy of the lowest common 
denominator

  
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "yifuxero"  wrote:
> >
> > right, makes me wonder(since if one is merely interested in 
> > wine-tasting, looking at the Babes, conversing with friends, 
> > etc; not that I'm dissing such enterprises "in themselves") ; 
> > and is posting on a forum oriented toward Spiritual stuff, 
> > why not access the wine-tasting forum?
> 
> Please explain why wine tasting and looking at babes
> are NOT spiritual. I'll wait. :-)
> 
> My point was that Fairfield Life is  *not* a forum
> oriented toward "Spiritual Stuff." It just likes
> to think of itself that way.

Well, here's the way the person who founded the
group likes to think of it:

"Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to
seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation
everywhere."

That clearly isn't what Barry claims it is, at least
not on the founder's part; and it leaves plenty of
room for discussing wine tasting and looking at
babes (or dudes). Yifuxero's point is that it isn't
a forum for discussing *only* wine and babes/dudes,
any more than it is a forum for discussing *only*
non-babe/dude, non-wine "spiritual stuff."

A consistent theme 
> here, especially among the TBs of one spiritual
> trip or another, is how much better or more evolved
> they are than the rabble.

I think one would have considerable trouble finding
this "theme" expressed here, actually.  I think the
IDEA that it's a *consistent* theme is a fantasy, a
straw man created for the purpose of putting down
those considered TBs.

I am merely making the
> point that -- based on their everyday behavior and
> the things they focus on -- the people saying this 
> *are* the very rabble they think they're better than.
> 
> They focus on the exact same things -- glomming onto
> and obsessing on celebrities (there is no difference
> between "spiritual celebrities" and "Hollywood celeb-
> rities" in my opinion), glomming onto and presenting
> as if they were Truth nutcase theories and conspiracies,
> acting as if they just can't *wait* to play "pile on" 
> to someone who does something they consider "wrong." 
> And their interactions with each other are almost 
> entirely limited to ego-battles and an attempt to 
> claim, "My beliefs about X are better  than your 
> beliefs about X, and *much* better than your belief 
> in Y. So there...nyaaah nyaaah." 
> 
> The fascinating thing is that there is a characteristic
> behavior on "spiritual forums" that one sees *more*
> there than one sees it in the tabloids.

Bogus comparison. A tabloid isn't a forum for 
any kind of discussion.

So let's forget about the tabloids and just think
about whether the IDEAs presented of the behavior
here make any sense.

In the tabloids,
> people whose mere IDEAS have been challenged don't on
> the whole lash out at the challenger *as if they had 
> been attacked personally*, as if the challenger must 
> be "mad

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: FFL as Tabloid: The joy of the lowest common denominator

[ditzyklanmail]

The user pulls the arrow and aims where needs be. Hogwash on the dangers of 
eastern meditation. If anyone is the same as they were 30-40 years ago it is 
because that is the way they were and still are and  also it is because they 
were pre-brainwashed by what ever beliefs they had before and they keep 
believing and that is a personal problem, not caused by eastern meditation.   







From: wgm4u 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 3 July, 2010 11:58:11 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: FFL as Tabloid: The joy of the lowest common 
denominator

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> Just now I went out to sit in one of my favorite cafes 
> and relax for a bit before getting back to work. During
> the summer I almost never drink alcohol (because doing
> so puts me right to sleep once the weather gets hot),
> but I still like the cafe scene because 1) watching the 
> passersby is like a never-ending movie, and 2) the cafes
> I hang out at have copies of the British tabloids lying
> around for me to read.
> 
> For Americans who don't know, British tabloids are like
> the National Enquirer, only more low-brow and more lowest
> common denominator. I love to read them to...uh...stay in
> touch with reality. One does *not* IMO get a very clear
> picture of reality by reading the high-brow or intellectual
> papers, but one gets a *very* clear picture of it by read-
> ing the tabloids. Given their circulation figures, these
> publications are read by more people on the planet than
> any other, and thus reflect what they're really thinking 
> about and interested in -- where they're at, state of 
> attention-wise. I sit there sipping my fruit juice or 
> bubbly water and chuckle myself silly at the "Aliens ate 
> my baby" and "Conservative MP found naked in WC with naked 
> Liberal MP" and "Sylvia Famousforfiveminutes gets new boob 
> job" articles. Keeps me grounded in reality. :-)
> 
> What I realized today, after scanning through several of
> these tabloids, is that this is exactly why I enjoy FFL
> as well.
> 
> Given the decidedly low-brow, unhip nature of the TMO
> in today's spiritual marketplace, reading a forum on
> which most have paid their dues in such a pop movement 
> (and I cheerfully include myself in that description)
> is often more of a "wake-up" than my morning coffee.
> 
> Take the things that FFL has been fascinated with lately.
> Endless posts about "spiritual celebrities," *not* IMO
> all that different than the tabloid fascination with
> more mundane celebrities. Endless musings on wingnut
> theories (or claims that they're fact) from the Right,
> Left, and Middle Way. Endless trotting out of "science"
> to "prove" something that has in no way been proved by
> the "science" cited. Endless political squabbles. 
> Endless ego contests and personality clashes. 
> 
> Reality.
> 
> I find that entertaining, especially on a forum whose
> own "lowest common denominator" is that most of the
> people on it once believed (or still believe) that the
> technique they practice (or practiced) is the bestest,
> most effective form of spiritual development on the
> frickin' planet, and that this makes them "special,"
> less lowest common denominator.
> 
> As my favorite saying these days says so well, "In theory 
> there is no difference between theory and practice, but 
> in practice there is." In theory, a group of folks who
> have practiced "the best" form of meditation available
> for 30 to 40+ years should represent by the things they
> focus on and show interest in the professed goals or 
> claimed results of such a meditation. In practice, they're 
> just folks, as stuck in the lowest common denominator as 
> anyone else.
> 
> Some might find that dismaying. I find it entertaining.

Interesting statement by Manly P Hall regarding the dangers of Eastern 
meditations was that he believes the practioner can believe that by practicing 
the meditation a magical thing will happen and they will be magically 
transformed from who they are, to what they want or should, be. This 
effectively 
cuts them off from utilizing their own will power to improve themselves, 
becoming completely dependent upon this inner awakening to do it all for them, 
sound familiar?

Sounds like TM to me, that is why the worm in the apple of the TM program is 
that MMY hasn't sufficiently emphasized the personal *effort* aspect of 
personal 
growth, whether it be their Religion or whatever. Most TM'ers have adopted TM 
*in lieu* of Religion, this is dangerous in my opinion as even the TM org 
itself 
says TM isn't a Religion (or at least isn't being taught as a Religion).

How many TM'ers are the same today they were 30 or 40 years ago, and how many 
have completely 'given up'? Adopting the principles of Religion (or Yama and 
Niyama) takes *static* energy gained during meditation and makes it *dynamic*. 
MMY says to pull the arrow back on the bow to gain the full

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fangs for the memories

[ditzyklanmail]

Now that deserves more than an lol or LOL.  I took the effort to hit all caps 
for this one! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA. 






From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 3 July, 2010 8:46:47 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fangs for the memories

  
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, ditzyklanmail  wrote:
>
> Blood sucking movies on the list of your favorites. Who would have thought. 
LOL



>  _ _ __
> From: TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroup s.com
> 
> One of the seemingly infinite number of articles centering
> on the release of another "Twilight" movie and the attendant
> hysteria on the part of teenage girls and their mothers
> caught my eye, and surprised me. I pass it along for fellow
> movie freaks, especially those who aren't afraid of vampire
> or horror movies.
> 
> The "teaser" for this article on Salon showed a still photo
> from one of the films under the headline "Better than 
> Twilight: 10 must-see vampire films." I instantly recognized
> the photo as having come from "Let The Right One In," easily
> on my Top Twenty Films Of All Time List. "Cool," thought I. 
> "I'll bet I know and have seen all the films on this list. So I 
> clicked on the link and started the slide show and found 
> that I had only heard of 5 of the 10. Given that I really
> *liked* the five I had seen, I am now feverishly trying to
> find copies of the other five, to lower my Vampire Clue-
> lessness Quotient.
> 
> http://www.salon. com/entertainmen t/movies/ vampires/ index.html? 
>story=/ent/movies/ film_ salon/2010/ 07/02/vampire_ movies_twilight_ 
>fans_should_ see 
> 
> I think numbers 10, 3, and 1 on this list are among the best
> films I've ever seen, much less the best vampire films I've
> ever seen. I look forward to seeing the rest.
>

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: FFL as Tabloid: The joy of the lowest common denominator

[ditzyklanmail]

Could it be Turquoise, strawman, is behaving like a carp? 







From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 3 July, 2010 7:57:03 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: FFL as Tabloid: The joy of the lowest common 
denominator

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "yifuxero"  wrote:
> >
> > right, makes me wonder(since if one is merely interested in 
> > wine-tasting, looking at the Babes, conversing with friends, 
> > etc; not that I'm dissing such enterprises "in themselves"); 
> > and is posting on a forum oriented toward Spiritual stuff, 
> > why not access the wine-tasting forum?
> 
> Please explain why wine tasting and looking at babes
> are NOT spiritual. I'll wait.  :-)
> 
> My point was that Fairfield Life is *not* a forum
> oriented toward "Spiritual Stuff." It just likes
> to think of itself that way.

Well, here's the way the person who founded the
group likes to think of it:

"Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to
seekers (and finders) of truth and liberation
everywhere."

That clearly isn't what Barry claims it is, at least
not on the founder's part; and it leaves plenty of
room for discussing wine tasting and looking at
babes (or dudes). Yifuxero's point is that it isn't
a forum for discussing *only* wine and babes/dudes,
any more than it is a forum for discussing *only*
non-babe/dude, non-wine "spiritual stuff."

A consistent theme 
> here, especially among the TBs of one spiritual
> trip or another, is how much better or more evolved
> they are than the rabble.

I think one would have considerable trouble finding
this "theme" expressed here, actually. I think the
IDEA that it's a *consistent* theme is a fantasy, a
straw man created for the purpose of putting down
those considered TBs.

I am merely making the
> point that -- based on their everyday behavior and
> the things they focus on -- the people saying this 
> *are* the very rabble they think they're better than.
> 
> They focus on the exact same things -- glomming onto
> and obsessing on celebrities (there is no difference
> between "spiritual celebrities" and "Hollywood celeb-
> rities" in my opinion), glomming onto and presenting
> as if they were Truth nutcase theories and conspiracies,
> acting as if they just can't *wait* to play "pile on" 
> to someone who does something they consider "wrong." 
> And their interactions with each other are almost 
> entirely limited to ego-battles and an attempt to 
> claim, "My beliefs about X are better than your 
> beliefs about X, and *much* better than your belief 
> in Y. So there...nyaaah nyaaah." 
> 
> The fascinating thing is that there is a characteristic
> behavior on "spiritual forums" that one sees *more*
> there than one sees it in the tabloids.

Bogus comparison. A tabloid isn't a forum for 
any kind of discussion.

So let's forget about the tabloids and just think
about whether the IDEAs presented of the behavior
here make any sense.

In the tabloids,
> people whose mere IDEAS have been challenged don't on
> the whole lash out at the challenger *as if they had 
> been attacked personally*, as if the challenger must 
> be "made to pay" for the "attack," and as if it is
> assumed that everyone who also believes in the IDEA
> that has been challenged should "pile on" and assist
> in dissing the challenger.

I suggest that the IDEA that the behavior described
is what happens "on the whole" is another straw man.

Here it happens so often 
> that people have stopped noticing it.

I suggest that it isn't "noticed" because it happens
so rarely, and when it does, it isn't taken very
seriously.

When someone such 
> as myself points out this systematic behavior, the 
> dissing gets focused on them.

I suggest that when a person disses others by
insultingly "pointing out systematic behavior" they
don't typically engage in, the person doing the
dissing may get dissed back.

> Just look at some of the reactions yesterday to me doing
> nothing more than suggesting that FFL was more like a 
> tabloid than a "spiritual forum."

Barry means *my* reaction. He got only three reactions,
after all. Of the other two, one agreed with him and
the other was a measured, reasoned reflection on the
IDEA Barry had expressed.

I contend that this
> is due to attachment to ideas and concepts (in this case,
> the idea that "We are special, not like the rabble")

Not on my part.

and 
> *an inability to tell the difference* between a challenge 
> to the idea and a challenge to one's self.

Does Barry really want to claim that the IDEA that
we are attached to the idea that "we are special, not
like the rabble" *isn't* a challenge to our selves?

My reaction was to point out Barry's own feeling
that he is "special, not like the rabble"--the IDEA
*behind* the idea that we typically respond as he
describes, which, as I said above, I think is his
fantasy. It's my perception that if anybody here

Re: [FairfieldLife] Fangs for the memories

[ditzyklanmail]

Blood sucking movies on the list of your favorites. Who would have thought. LOL






From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 3 July, 2010 8:10:38 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Fangs for the memories

  
One of the seemingly infinite number of articles centering
on the release of another "Twilight" movie and the attendant
hysteria on the part of teenage girls and their mothers
caught my eye, and surprised me. I pass it along for fellow
movie freaks, especially those who aren't afraid of vampire
or horror movies.

The "teaser" for this article on Salon showed a still photo
from one of the films under the headline "Better than 
Twilight: 10 must-see vampire films." I instantly recognized
the photo as having come from "Let The Right One In," easily
on my Top Twenty Films Of All Time List. "Cool," thought I. 
"I'll bet I know and have seen all the films on this list. So I 
clicked on the link and started the slide show and found 
that I had only heard of 5 of the 10. Given that I really
*liked* the five I had seen, I am now feverishly trying to
find copies of the other five, to lower my Vampire Clue-
lessness Quotient.

http://www.salon. com/entertainmen t/movies/ vampires/ index.html? story=/ent/ 
movies/film_ salon/2010/ 07/02/vampire_ movies_twilight_ fans_should_ see
 
I think numbers 10, 3, and 1 on this list are among the best
films I've ever seen, much less the best vampire films I've
ever seen. I look forward to seeing the rest.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] The "highest goal in life" as IDEA

[ditzyklanmail]

Pardon my simplicity. 
As a little kid, I remember presents wrapped in pretty paper at certain times 
of 
the year  and it was always enjoyable to see what was inside the box that was 
handed to me or had my name on it. 

It made me feel special because I realized someone may bring me something. I 
liked getting things given to me. It was fun. I felt special.  Then I remember 
feeling like I wondered how I could get more gifts or what was next. I kind of 
started expecting it to happen.  How many days to that Birthday or Christmas. 
Christmas was the mother load. Presents!

Then on occasion my family would go to a church for funerals or weddings. 
Mostly 
funerals. I remember the scary image of a very large (bigger than my Dad)  man 
on a cross with blood streaming from his hands and feet and head. It made me 
scared and I remember thinking what happened to him and why is he facing me?  I 
remember I was told that was Jesus, but I do not remember who told me that the 
first time. I was scared of this man who was hung in front of me and everyone 
was crying  (funeral) or on their knees with their eyes closed and some sat 
doing nothing and no one was allowed to talk. Then some man and a couple of 
boys 
would be up under the Jesus, lighting candles, incense (smelly stuff) and 
saying 
words in a sing song yet mono tone voice and the people in the place facing the 
big Jesus would say things back in an answer and that I did not know why and I 
also did not know the words. As I got older, I felt more uncomfortable with the 
responses back from the people facing the big Jesus, because I did not know the 
words to say, so I would pretend to move my lips like everyone else to be the 
same as to not be different, because I was sure I may not be accepted.
 I felt like I had to join in or people would look at me funny or stare at me.
So, if you would like to share IDEA's, this is where one would start. The first 
impressions of what one remembers feeling. It may not  be what was actually 
happening in the surroundings, but still, the feelings are all one can go by at 
a young age. To begin with. 








From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 3 July, 2010 4:41:55 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] The "highest goal in life" as IDEA

  
I am fascinated by a certain type of idea -- one so 
established as being "true" that one can express the 
idea and no one questions the "truth" of it. After
a while such ideas become *so* established and *so*
assumed to be true that other ideas are piled on top 
of the first idea, to build larger "idea structures."
And again, because the "foundation idea" is so assumed
to be true, no one ever asks whether the whole struc-
ture might be built on quicksand instead of bedrock.

Such an idea is "Realization of enlightenment is the
highest goal in life."

My bet is that there are some on this forum who are 
shocked that I even question the truth of this idea. 
They have assumed the truth of it for so long and 
*repeated* the supposed truth of it so many times that
they literally cannot conceive of the possibility of 
it *not* being true. 

I have asked people who believe in this idea to tell 
me where it CAME FROM, where they first heard this 
idea -- which they clearly believe is true -- that the
highest goal in life is the realization of enlightenment. 
Fascinatingly, many of them cannot remember, or claim 
not to be able to. When I ask, "Were you BORN with 
this idea," a shocking number of them say, "Yes." 

When I then ask the ones who say this when was the 
first time in their lives they ever heard of the concept 
of enlightenment, they give an age or a year, no problem. 
But when I point out that they have just claimed that 
they've believed that this thing they first heard about 
at age 20 or in 1967 was the highest goal in life since 
they were born, they see no conflict. It's like, having 
accepted the idea as true here and now, they practice 
revisionist history on their own lives and claim to have 
always believed it is true.

I get even more fascinating responses when I reply to
someone who says that enlightenment is the highest
goal in life by asking WHY. The response to this 
simple, three-letter question is often a look of 
incredulity, like, "Don't you KNOW? It just IS." 

Those of you who have paid your dues in an organization
that taught you this "enlightenment is the highest goal"
supposed truism, think back to all of the things you 
have done in your life to achieve this "highest goal."
Even more interesting, think back to all of the things
you *haven't* done in your life, or have *rejected*,
because you believed that pursuing enlightenment was 
more important. *By definition* it was more important,
because it's the "highest goal." OK, now having done 
that, think back to how many times during this life you
have stepped back and asked yourself "IS enlightenment 
really the highest goal in life?" Or "WHY is the
reali

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Osho Speaks About Lovemaking

[ditzyklanmail]

Turquoise on top!  (this time, anyways)

Side line muncher here, enjoying what words I could not have expressed.

You know, they say, Ron Jeremy is an expert too. He doesn't have to try to get 
laid...they flock to him. 

If one is interested in Jyotish, in the mocumentary, Porn Star, Ron Jeremy 
gives 
his exact birthtime, place, date. 

Never had a disease, Shani in the eighth and many women, shukra in the fourth, 
and I do believe he is Kumbha lagna, I don't remember. He still keeps getting 
women with no effort, a bit chubby and out of shape and kind of funny looking 
now. Ron shows up for gigs(shows) with pretty young women, still.  He is a hero 
to many men (and women), gets back stage with no effort. lol.  Seriously,  I 
hear he is a really nice guy. lol. He doesn't charge for books or tapes or 
lessons, I am sure! LOL






From: TurquoiseB 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 2 July, 2010 2:01:04 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Osho Speaks About Lovemaking

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> He explains his special technique for experiencing the sacredness 
> of lovemaking.  You can call him whatever you like, a charlatan 
> or womanizer.  But this guy has an expertise.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbyOE2_Yssw&feature=channel

There is an unintentional but hilarious "TMO definition"
of the word "expertise" here.

The guy who hasn't had a girlfriend or gotten laid in
decades but who makes money selling his ability to use 
Jyotish to predict how successful other people's rela-
tionships will be (JohnR) watches a video of a guy 
talking about "sacred lovemaking" and decides that 
the guy talking is an "expert."

Some people aren't comfortable with reality and exper-
iencing things for themselves, and can only find "truth" 
or "expertise" in theory and being told about those 
experiences by those they deem "experts." And it seems 
that the "rule" is that he less the TMers have experienced 
the thing being talked about themselves, the more they 
are convinced that the person talking about it as if 
they have is an "expert," *as long as someone somewhere
considers the speaker a guru*.

I wish I could find a video of the talk a friend of mine
who used to study with Osho told me about, in which Osho
praised the spiritually liberating nature of homosexual 
sex for heterosexuals. If John saw such a video he'd be 
buttering up his butt in an instant, because in his view 
the talk comes from an "expert."  :-)


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Lencois Maranhenses

[ditzyklanmail]

Beautiful photos. 
 I knew that place looked familiar.
 A film called, The House of Sand.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373747/







From: yifuxero 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 1 July, 2010 11:45:28 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife]

  
neat dunes in Brazil
http://www.pbase.com/marciomachado/lenis_maranhenses


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What is wrong with you lot?

[ditzyklanmail]

and take this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSEYXWmEse8&feature=player_embedded





From: ditzyklanmail 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 1 July, 2010 8:27:18 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What is wrong with you lot?

  
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=QSo0duY7- 9s
English pig dogs!





From: Don Miller 
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Thu, 1 July, 2010 7:44:22 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What is wrong with you  lot?

  
Dear Superior British Person,
 
Couldn't agree more.  Tsall in good fun.  Right?





 From: shukra69 
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Thu, July 1, 2010 7:31:35 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What is wrong with you lot?

  
go back to posting your boring retarded shit which almost no-one here reads, 
Superior British Person

--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "rwr"  wrote:
>
> 
> What is wrong with you lot?
> 
> 
> 
> You not only seem to want to fight the world but also each other. It
> makes the UNITED states a mockery. If you have nothing important, or
> even encouraging to say, why not put a sock in it. Don't you get on
> each others wick day in and day out prattling crap by the gallon load? I
> have never done it but I thought you lot were into meditation and
> relaxation. Why not get back to it, it might cheer you up a bit and take
> all those dark clouds away. You ain't going to change the world by
> yakking at  each  other and running everybody down. Don't try to
> change the world, try to change yourself. That might change the world.
> 
> rwr
>




 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question of Eligibility movie on YouTube

[ditzyklanmail]

Not taking sides hereactually it is racist to refer as an Angry white guy. 




From: do.rflex 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 1 July, 2010 8:25:08 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question of Eligibility movie on YouTube

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On Jul 1, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Joe wrote:
> 
> > Dude. The truth prevailed on that one long ago. You choose not to believe 
> > it 
>because you don't want to believe it. You want your country back, right? (I 
>thought so.)
> > 
> > Obama Birthers are right there with folks who think the landing on the moon 
>was shot in Hollywood and that 9/11 was a US Government plot.
> > 
> > Enjoy you status as a complete looney tune.
> 
> With every post Brian is proving himself to be not only a 
> few french fries short of a Happy Meal, but also a charter
> member of the Angy-White-Guys-Whose-World-Is-Rapidly-
> Changing-And-Who-Know-They-Can't-Stop-It-But-Who-Are
> Dang-Well-Gonna-Try-Anyway Club.  Not by doing anything
> substantial, of course~~simply by starting rumors and casting
> "doubt" (or at least their version of it) where and when they can.
> It would be funny if it weren't sad.
> 
> Sal
>

Excellent description of a person from Planet Wingnuttia! Well done, Sal!


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What is wrong with you lot?

[ditzyklanmail]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSo0duY7-9s
English pig dogs!





From: Don Miller 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 1 July, 2010 7:44:22 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What is wrong with you lot?

  
Dear Superior British Person,
 
Couldn't agree more.  Tsall in good fun.  Right?





 From: shukra69 
To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Thu, July 1, 2010 7:31:35 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What is wrong with you lot?

  
go back to posting your boring retarded shit which almost no-one here reads, 
Superior British Person

--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "rwr"  wrote:
>
> 
> What is wrong with you lot?
> 
> 
> 
> You not only seem to want to fight the world but also each other. It
> makes the UNITED states a mockery. If you have nothing important, or
> even encouraging to say, why not put a sock in it. Don't you get on
> each others wick day in and day out prattling crap by the gallon load? I
> have never done it but I thought you lot were into meditation and
> relaxation. Why not get back to it, it might cheer you up a bit and take
> all those dark clouds away. You ain't going to change the world by
> yakking at each  other and running everybody down. Don't try to
> change the world, try to change yourself. That might change the world.
> 
> rwr
>



 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Remedial Insult Training for Avatards (was: Is a Teacher necessary?)

[ditzyklanmail]

Stein is on top!






From: authfriend 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 1 July, 2010 11:39:11 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Remedial Insult Training for Avatards (was: Is a 
Teacher necessary?)

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

> I have an "uber-point" in posting things that challenge 
> assumptions here, Yifu. The "point" is merely to challenge
> the assumption because so few do. The "uber-point" is to
> demonstrate that there is almost a *systematic* reaction 
> on the part of supposedly-spiritual people attached to 
> these assumptions to "kill the messenger" and launch ad 
> hominem attacks at the challengers.

No. No, that isn't the "uber-point," that's your all-too-
transparent excuse for setting up opportunities for
putdowns.

You do this by making cheesy, ill-thought-out "challenges"
to what you claim are unquestioned assumptions. And when
anybody *disagrees* with you, no matter how reasoned and
logical their disagreement, you proceed to *portray* them
as being "attached" to the assumptions, rather than as
having carefully considered them and taken a position
based on that consideration.

Moreover, when your sloppy, shallow arguments are
criticized, you try to portray the criticism as "ad
hominem" and "killing the messenger" rather than
responding substantively to the criticism. This is when
you start firing off your insults.

Might I point out 
> that you edge in this direction yourself above? And all
> that I did is present an IDEA contrary to one you are
> heavily invested in.

You presented it *badly*. Yufixero analyzed it--without
any insults--and found it wanting. Your response to
his substantive, reasoned post was even lamer than your
initial presentation. It was *so* lame that Yifuxero had
a hard time believing you were trying to make an honest
case.

That's a very typical pattern with you. You're far more
interested in the chance for a putdown than you are in
actually discussing an issue substantively, so you
throw together whatever comes to your mind, whatever
sounds impressive to your writerly ear, without ever
actually taking the time to think through what you're
saying.

And you virtually always compose your "challenges" by
demeaning and belittling those who purportedly hold
the assumptions you're "challenging." You deliberately
try to get people's backs up so you can dump on them
if they react with irritation at being belittled.

This is a game you've played ever since I first
encountered you.


> What I mind is the lack of creativity in the insults. On
> the whole, lame. So far on this forum, only Curtis and
> occasionally Joe have managed to come up with any good
> insults. The rest are way pedestrian, boring, and on the
> whole more intellectually challenged than the people 
> hurling them. And that's really saying something.

You mean, pedestrian, boring, and intellectually
challenged like this very recent one?

"I was very specific in my language. As far as I know,
a 'person' is another human being. I'm not exactly
sure what branch of Darwin's tree trolls inhabit,
but I'm pretty sure it's not the one labeled
'homo sapiens.' :-)"

If so, we agree on something for a change. Lame-o-rama.


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question of Eligibility movie on YouTube

[ditzyklanmail]

Yeah, take that! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_QcGpR8SCY






From: Joe 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 1 July, 2010 6:11:26 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Question of Eligibility movie on YouTube

  

Dude. The truth prevailed on that one long ago. You choose not to believe it 
because you don't want to believe it. You want your country back, right? (I 
thought so.)

Obama Birthers are right there with folks who think the landing on the moon was 
shot in Hollywood and that 9/11 was a US Government plot.

Enjoy you status as a complete looney tune.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, brian64705  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >
> > So what do you want the outcome to be? 
> 
> That the truth prevail!  Release the long form birth certificate so all can 
> see 
>that this a nation which abides by the rule of law. Not a nation of bullies 
>where might is right allowing the powerful to refuse to abide by the laws and 
>treaties that are the hallmark of any civilized society.
> 
> Obama removed and Joe Biden 
> > president?   Or maybe you want slimeball Mitt Romney in office?  No less 
> > than Paul Craig Roberts, a member of the Reagan administration and a 
> > conservative said when the birther issue came up that it was all bull 
> > because Obama would have been vetted just to have public office.
> > 
> > brian64705 wrote:
> > > Well the birthplaces of Presidents are ussually regarded as national 
>monuments. Even actors and other famous peoples birthplaces are celebrated. 
>And 
>of course noone knew at the time of their births they would later be famous. I 
>would imagine the local doctors and others who might have been present to have 
>checked their hospital records to see if they might have been the ones to 
>claim 
>the honor of assisting in the birth of a future president. It seems highly 
>suspicious to me that all Obama's private records have been sealed. With the 
>sole exception of the certificate of live birth. Why the secrecy if there is 
>nothing to hide?
> > >
> > >  I understand the story has changed about even which institution he was 
>born at in Hawaii. I also heard - but have not seen written anywhere - that 
>there is a record confirming that his mother tried to fly to Hawaii but was 
>turned away because she was too close to giving birth. So she flew immediately 
>after giving birth and registered the birth with newspapers which allegedly 
>was 
>possible at the time without requiring a birth certificate.   There's enough 
>uncertainty here I think to justify asking to see the long form birth 
>certificate.
> > >
> > > There are at least two other legal issues as well. One about whether his 
>mother had been in the US for five years prior to age 19 in order for Obama to 
>claim US citizenship.
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> > > 
> > >> On Jun 30, 2010, at 10:52 PM, brian64705 wrote:
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >>> I am not persuaded by those who chose to attack the messenger which is 
> > >>> a 
>common response to anyone raising questions. It's interesting to me that noone 
>has so far claimed to have been present at Obamas birth in Hawaii. 
>
> > >>> 
> > >> Brian, who exactly do you *expect* to claim to have been
> > >> "present at Obama's birth in Hawaii"?  3 wise men and
> > >> a couple of shepherds perhaps?  With a star pointing
> > >> the way?  48 years ago no less?  Bet I couldn't produce
> > >> anybody "present at my birth either" beyond my
> > >> parents.  And my dad most likely only because he was
> > >> a doctor.
> > >>
> > >> He was a nobody~~his mother was just one more 
> > >> young wife giving birth amongst many others.  End of story.
> > >>
> > >> Sal
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>