Yeah, but as noted, ex cathedra pronouncements are very rare and typically
quite narrow, on often relatively obscure points of doctrine. If the Church
intended what you describe, it could easily do a far more effective job of it.
Such statements tend to have very little, if any, practical effect
Er, Barry, think Buck's post might possibly have been ironic?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
From: "dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife]"
Let it be known that when we on FFL speak "ex cathedra," where we "define a
doctrine concerning faith by experience or proper morals of p
The question is whether Barry believes his own paranoid fantasies are "Truth."
Nobody else does.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Has anyone noticed that Judy seems to have as faulty an assessment of the
number of people who believe her when she declares "Truth" as Jimbo do
He's losing influence here, and he knows it. Instead of trying to recoup by
coming up with at least more plausible fantasies, he's doubled down on the
crazy ones.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
can you say the stench of desperation?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrot
Of course he isn't. That was kinda my point.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Judy,
In this particular case, I don't believe the Pope is speaking "ex cathedra".
So, he is expressing an opinion of the current economic system and does not
have to be accepted as a matter of fait
Nope. Here's what you said:
Thank you so much emptybill. this knowledge about rasas and bhavas is
extremely useful.
However, the only "knowledge" emptybill conveyed about rasas and bhavas is
that they are said to be instrumental in bringing about God-realization through
anger:
You t
LURKING REPORTERS: More ironclad evidence of why you should not trust what
Barry tells you. Check it out with someone reliable.
Wow. You'd think Barry was asleep and dreaming the whole time Robin was posting
here.
BTW, everything I'm about to say can be found in the FFL archives.
Sre, Barry, sre. I understand why you don't want me to alert them to
your particularly egregious misrepresentations.
You seem to have deleted the part about everything I said being in the
archives. The lurking reporters are more than welcome to contact me for
specifics so they can che
Wouldn't you love to see all those purported emails? Jeez, all I have to do is
say "lurking reporters" and Barry freaks.
LURKING REPORTERS: More ironclad evidence of why you should not trust what
Barry tells you. Check it out with someone reliable.
Just FYI, Judykins, I am in email conta
I wonder if this bit is addressed to Barry, who seems to claim definitive
knowledge of who is enlightened and who isn't (or wasn't, in Robin's case):
I say alleged because enlightenment does not show, and an unenlightened person
would not know how to evaluate its presence (assuming enlightenm
"Phrases" are not knowledge, Share. Any knowledge about Raudra Rasa and Krodha
Bhava, you obtained on your own--except for the knowledge emptybill provided,
which, as you keep avoiding, was that they are are said to be instrumental in
bringing about God-realization through anger.
---In Fairfie
Actually, if they accept what Barry says here, they aren't very good at
"determining what is fact, what is fantasy, and what are outright lies." They
might well experience some serious cognitive dissonance if they were to look at
certain items in the FFL archives.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogrou
Stop digging, Share. You're getting yourself into an increasingly deep hole.
Below, I quoted the entirety of emptybill's post--three sentences, the second
of which was the one that mentioned Raudra Rasa and Krodha Bhava in the context
of using anger as a path to God. There was almost nothing f
Actually, Share did not explain things adequately, but that's a red herring
with regard to your own misrepresentations.
The "lurking reporters" have not seen any hypocrisy from me, nor have they
seen me say anything that was untruthful. Your claims about Robin in your
recent post were factual
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Mike, I like your insights here an
Michael, if you haven't read up on shingles, you really should. There's a
vaccine available (approved for folks 50 years old and older) that
significantly reduces the chances of a recurrence. Shingles is a huge problem
for older folks. If you ever had chicken pox, the shingles virus is in your
Learning that you and I both had been in extensive private contact with Robin
(initiated by Robin) upset Barry terribly. It made him look like a fool for his
claims that Robin had no interest in us, e.g.:
*From my point of view*, Robin barely tolerated his groupies here. He almost
never had a
There wouldn't have been any arguments about forum posters if Barry's comments
about Robin in connection with the article hadn't been blatantly false.
The parallel between Robin and Cohen is interesting, though. They both went
through what sounds like a similar agonizing reappraisal of their p
Ho-hum, another delusional psychotic rant from Barry. Does he enjoy living in
this ugly fantasy world he's created?
I suspect the key to it is that it enables him to project all his own flaws
onto the people he hates. The most extreme example comes at the end of this
post, where he attributes
Um. Didn't somebody just rail against "belittling and putting down as stupid"
the folks one corrects?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Mr. I'm-Enlightened-And-Thus-I-Just-Know-Things-That-You-Lesser-Beings-Don't
is showing his ignorance again. This is what he considers a "childr
Oh, don't be silly, feste. Of course you're protecting her, along with the rest
of the White Knights. But nobody else on FFL, as far as I can see, seems to
need such protection, even when they're being harassed (by Barry, for example)
in the most unpleasant and obsessive ways.
You have double
"For decades"?? Share, you've known me for less than a single decade. What on
earth would lead you to think you knew what I've been doing "for decades"? It
couldn't be that you're taking Barry's word as gospel, could it?
I've certainly been hammering Barry for decades (or almost two), but as
Just for da record, the nature of the God of classical theism is said to be
absolutely simple:
"The doctrine of divine simplicity says that God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God is without parts. The general idea of divine
simplicity can be stated in this way: the being of God is identical to
My contribution:
* It respects other traditions and beliefs. One may disagree with the teachings
of other spiritual traditions, but one refrains from criticizing or mocking the
teachers, teachings, or practitioners.of those traditions. It's considered
extremely low-vibe to do so and not at al
Oh, Lawson, I'm sure nobody would assume I had Barry in mind. He probably just
forgot to include this attribute in his own list, don't you think?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
That's just "not cool," Judy, as it automatically casts dispersions on Unc's
way of doing things.
Not a thing wrong with the idea, as far as I'm concerned, except that in the
execution, you left out any mention of respecting other spiritual
teachings/teachers/practitioners.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Thanks for your input. As should be obvious, I'm ignoring any respon
Actually that phrasing is ambiguous when it comes to something that's only
speculative. It can mean either that you don't believe it exists, or that if it
did exist, you'd be opposed to it. In the case of the death penalty, we know it
exists, so "I don't believe in it" can only mean "I'm opposed
It isn't a "grudge," Barry, and it's hardly "weird." There are quite a few of
us here who feel exactly as he does about your behavior (as you may perhaps
have noticed). It's not as if you'd turned over a new leaf since he left, is
it, now?
Nor is it as though you never attacked anybody except
Heaven forfend that Barry should read the article at the link I posted, which
reports on a recent Gallup survey showing that large majorities of Americans
are in favor of various approaches to gun control.
What Americans have is a political problem in which minorities and special
interest gr
Right, "America" is overwhelmingly against any form of gun control.
Oh, wait...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx
---In FairfieldLife@yah
And I'm back to "America has a political problem," given that the overwhelming
majority of Americans want stricter gun controls, but the appropriate
legislation is consistently blocked by the minority who don't want any gun
controls.
Obviously that political problem has an impact on many othe
America also has a very different history from the Netherlands, one in which
guns of necessity played a major role.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Not really my conversation, but I thought it was also mentioned that diversity
plays a factor. Holland is probably more homogeneo
Comments below...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
And I'm back to "America has a political problem," given that the overwhelming
majority of Americans want stricter gun controls, but the appropriate
legislation is consistently bl
I'll confirm this from my experience when I lived in NYC.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
You are extrapolating for about two hundred million of us (urban dwellers).
There is no constant low level fear here. As usual, I don't know anyone who
thinks the way you assume they do. M
Comment below...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Comments below...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
And I'm back to "America has a political problem," given that th
I'm sick of your debating tactics, Curtis. Your response here is just more of
same. I shouldn't have stuck with our theism discussion as long as I did. From
now on, when you begin hauling out the old tricks, I'm gone.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yaho
Sure didn't take long for the old Curtis to surface. But I'm not playing any
more, sorry.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
J: I'm sick of your debating tactics, Curtis. Your response here is just more
of same.
C: Your conte
Who says they have to?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Why? Because they can't let go of the idea that God doesn't exist. What do
you think?
Let me try that again. Who says they have to let go of the idea that there is
no God in order to transcend?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Judy,
Nobody says they have to. And that's precisely why they can't transcend.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Who sa
Comments below...
I should also point out that you seem intent to portray anyone who *doesn't*
believe in a God as "lesser" and on some lower plane of existence.
Sorta like you portray anyone who DOES believe in a God.
My continuing experiences of what he called "transcenden
Nabs is a fan of Buddha, just not of Buddhists who don't practice TM.
Opsie!
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
From an interview with David Lynch:
David Lynch’s Heart Opened When…
The director spoke of two times when he was shaken to his core. One was when
he first saw Franc
Actually, there's major scholarly disagreement with the translation "within."
Jesus was directly addressing the Pharisees, after all, not making a general
statement; and he'd made it crystal clear that he thought they were corrupt
inside and out. Just contextually, it's extremely unlikely he was
P.S.: The complete sentence is, "The Kingdom of God is within/among/in the
midst of you"--"you" meaning the Pharisees. You can't leave off the "you"
without seriously misrepresenting what Jesus was saying.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Actually, there's major scholarly disagre
Nope. "But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be
added unto you" (Luke 12:31). Matthew has "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and
his righteousness..." (6:33).
Again, Nabby, Jesus was talking to the Pharisees, who he thought were
spiritually corrupt and incapable of
But believe it or not, there is an "Atheism for Dummies" book.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
I think it could be a great title for a book, "Atheists Can't Transcend"
Come to think of it, I don't think I've seen a book in the series along the
lines of "Transcending for
Sure. And for all we know, similar sayings of Jesus to those in the Gospel of
Thomas may have been redacted from the canonical Gospels. But in this case, he
had a very specific point to make to the Pharisees about his identity and their
inability to see him for who he was. He wasn't saying "Look
Hmm, I always did wonder where Jesus learned English.
Oh, Barry, you tiddlywink. I just want to hang you up by the collar of your
little sailor suit and pinch those chubby pink cheeks.
(No kidding, folks, Barry's said a lot of unbelievably stupid things here,
especially recently. But this
You know, I missed this part:
If you cannot, please explain to us why we shouldn't consider them mere
examples of spiritual bigotry and hatred, spouted by someone anxious to impose
his notions of an Old Testament God onto Maharishi's notions of "Being" and
overwrite them...replace them with
Who thinks of lucid dreaming as "mystical" or "spiritual"? I don't think I've
ever heard that one before.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Another fascinating article presenting a different way of looking at
experiences that many would call "mystical" or "spiritual." To a scienti
Barry just hates it when people laugh at his button-pushing attempts. That's
why he snipped this from his quote of Ann's post:
He was posting this to imply that visionaries or those who have had spiritual
or revelatory experiences were most likely diseased in some way. I wonder if he
was frot
My understanding has been that witnessing dreams is just that, witnessing them,
not trying to change what's happening in them. No?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 1:04 PM
To: Fa
Ann has had Barry's number virtually from the beginning of her time here.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Ann,
Well said. You're a very intelligent woman.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
John, since you per
Be interesting to compare EEG measurements of lucid dreaming vs. witnessing
dreams, see if they're similar or distinct. I've witnessed dreams, but there
was never any impetus to interfere with them; and I've had a few lucid dreams
in which becoming lucid was the trigger for changing them. For me
Comments below...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Judy,
Jesus said many mysterious ideas in his teachings. IMO, he was conveying the
idea of consciousness as the basis of everything to ignorant people, including
the apostles, at that time.
I'm not contesting this, John.
Have you ever considered the possibility that those who believe in free will
are just too dull to imagine the world they see around them any other way?
Fish in a barrel, baby...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Have you ever considered the possibility that those who believe
FWIW, determinism and predestination are two different things. Predestination
is the doctrine that everything that happens has been destined to happen from
the beginning. Determinism is the doctrine that every action is determined by
the previous action.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, w
Yes, I do know, but actually, I was responding to Bhairitu, not Barry. Really
just a point of possible general interest for anyone following these
discussions.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
FWIW, determinism and predestinatio
Uh-oh, Barry's having another ego-crisis. 600-plus words' worth.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
My thanks to both Judy and Ann for responding on cue to my one-liner, and thus
proving that *they* live in a deterministic universe of their own making. :-)
That was the point of
Couple comments below...
That was the point of my post, after all. I just thought up the line,
considered it funny, and posted it intentionally using the word "determinist"
because I knew that Judy would feel she "had" to respond to it by ragging on
me. And she did. Because *she*
Buck, you're a disgrace. You inveigh against "spam" but you don't even know
what it is.
And it's hard to believe the dishonesty of referring to Alex as "A
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Ranchydog could certainly attempt to give some spiritual or FFL context as to
dumping t
Question is, why would you want to "suss out" someone's "trigger words"? Why
would you want to make a person your "puppet"? What kind of sick ego/power trip
is that?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
As a more serious reply, the effect of language on people is (obviously) a
co
Buck hasn't won anything but the Pain in the Butt Award, IMHO. It's dishonest
of him to claim Alex took what he quoted "out of context." What's out of
context is the single sentence Buck quoted, given that what Alex quoted
specifies the sorts of topics that that sentence potentially includes. Bu
"EFT has no useful effect as a therapy beyond the placebo effect or any
known-effective psychological techniques that may be used with the purported
'energy' technique, but proponents of EFT have published material claiming
otherwise. Their work, however, is flawed and so unreliable: high-qualit
Non Sequiturs 'R' Us...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Of course destroying words is no solution at all. But just think how the word
*cancer* can affect people, making their heart race, causing all those fight or
flight hormon
Have you really never read or heard any of the arguments against abortion?
That's hard to believe.
BTW, abortion is not necessarily always a "personal tragedy" to those who have
one.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Lawson, I admit I'm flummoxed by peoples' fanatical positi
Sam Harris insists that free will is just an illusion, so this would be an
excellent topic for Rick to ask about when he interviews Harris, no?
http://www.samharris.org/free-will http://www.samharris.org/free-will
I even suspect that this irrelevance of true/false might be at play w
It isn't a matter of whether you agree with it (that's a non sequitur, as are
eating meat on Fridays and the Inquisition), it's why you wouldn't understand
that people who believe abortion involves murdering innocent, helpless human
life are so appalled by it and feel it's their duty to help sav
Exactly. And also why they want abortion to be illegal.
Why that should be hard to understand, I can't imagine.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
They consider it MURDER. Not just rhetoric; that is how they really see it, as
the murder of a child. That is why they are so upse
Did you miss the word "allegedly," Barry? It is not a synonym for "I
believe..."
Well, there's floating during TM-SIdhis pracice, and then there's floating
during daily activity. Allegedly someone fully in Unity could perform any and
all TM-SIdhis at any time, in any circumstance.
And you
Nobody is spamming us, Buck.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Yes, and Om may the Unified Field of our forum community guidelines and our
FairfieldLife community list owner and moderators protect us all from the
spamming spammer who spams us. -Buck in the Dome
Awoelflebater s
You left something out, Buck.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
“Fairfield Life focuses on topics of interest to seekers (and finders) of
truth and liberation everywhere.” Yahoo forums guideline: “Stay on topic.
Although all groups are different, most groups appreciate it when yo
You'll wait forever, given that Lawson never said he believed it. The rest of
us will just laugh at you and go on about our business (so you can strike the
"we" and just use "I").
Just as an additional point, haven't you seen the reports that many of these
statements about imm
No, not spam. Alex deletes spam whenever it's posted, so you have nothing to
worry about.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Yes, Pretty much any topic is fair game. But Not Spam. -Buck
authfriend writes:
You left something out, Buck.
“Fairfield Life focuses on t
Is there any possibility that you could simply refrain from reading the posts
you aren't interested in instead of demanding self-censorship from us poor
unfortunate Americans?
Oh, and who are the "those of us" besides yourself?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
...from those o
I don't think you mean "thoughtcrime," Buck. Are you a mind-reader?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Yep, and this FFL is a moderated list particularly around the thoughtcrime of
the posting of spam. As a protection to the life of the group we have a policy
given to us by o
This time Barry missed "and excited on another."
Of course, the "wish to find out" in and of itself doesn't mean "no
possibility of sadness or disappointment" any more than it means no possibility
of excitement. What's sad is the person who is so emotionally repressed as to
suggest either.
I also strongly disagree with Jim's thesis. However...
This time, Barry missed "cancer cannot get a foothold"--i.e., cannot "flourish
and replicate."
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Thank you for the clarity, Curtis, and for taking on this particular meme, and
form of New Age
Comments below...
Especially coming from one of the "Maharishi enlightened."
"What if what has been described as enlightenment in the past
has *absolutely nothing* to do with personality or behavior?
What if, just as those who described it in the past have said,
it is purely about conscio
Isn't that something? Yes, I've said the same thing. I wonder if he remembers
it. I stumbled on it some time ago when I was looking for something else on
alt.m.t, saved it, then forgot I had it until I stumbled over it in my own
files a couple days ago. I suspect it was intended as a putdown of
I think what Barry means by "what [they] do in their posts" is the spin he puts
on what they say, whether that's what they intended or not--e.g., if you or I
say something negative about Barry, it's because we're trying desperately to
force him to respond to us.
Of course, that cuts both ways
It's good that you're taking a break from demonstrating your spiritual
advancement by trying to "get" those who disagree with you, Barry.
While others on this forum demonstrate their spiritual advancement by trying
to "get" those who disagree with them, you'll have to forgive me if I prefer t
I suspect Richard is referring just to your posts, Buck.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Whoa, TM/MIU/MUM are a sacred posting ground here. The TM/MIU/MUM postings to
FFL are well grandfathered on to FFL as a kind of fact based postulate and
original thought. They are a partic
Good for Sam Harris. Anyone without a solid understanding of this elementary
truth is not going to get anywhere studying the nature of consciousness.
According to Sam Harris, to say that consciousness may only seem to
exist is to admit its existence in full—for if things seem any way at
al
Actually, according to the dictionary, "meditation" can mean several different
things depending on the context. You can use the term in an everyday sense to
mean "to think things over," but it doesn't "simply" mean that, and that isn't
what it means when we use it on FFL or in the context of a s
As you know, Knapp hasn't been associated with TM-Free for several years. Mike
Doughney runs it now.
You already did this, over on TM-Free, for John Knapp.
As you know, minet.org is Mike Doughney's Web site.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
On 5/16/2014 9:55 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]
wrote:
As you know, Knapp hasn't been associated with TM-Free for several years. Mike
Doughney runs it now.
>
Appare
The first paragraph here is a good example of what Maharishi meant by
"Knowledge is structured in consciousness."
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
While alive, everybody has experience, consciousness. So 'something' is making
the content of experience visible. There is always a '
Almost 900 words devoted to an attempt to make TMers feel bad about themselves.
This, of course, is how Barry makes himself feel Special these days--by
attributing to TMers the fantasies of Specialness that he himself entertained
about TM. Ultimately it didn't work out, so he moved on to Rama
Has anybody else noticed how obsessed with dicks Barry is lately?
(BTW, Barry, Viagra didn't come onto the market until long after you'd beat
feet from the TMO.)
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Because I was once a teacher, and have no wish to lead prospective seekers Off
Th
As I believe was mentioned here not long ago, as far as DSM-IV is concerned,
dissociation is to be considered a "disorder" only if it bothers the person who
is experiencing it.
As should not be a surprise, I completely agree with you that the science of
dissociative disorders pretty m
On what basis do you think this?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Richard, I think the soul enters the body at 3 months. I'm not sure what
should be done after that.
And he would have known this how, do you think?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Judy, opening a can of worms, I think this because I heard through the
grapevine that Maharishi said it.
On Saturday, May 17, 2014 10:53 AM, "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]"
wrote:
On what
Hoagland, whose conspiracy theory it is, appears to be something of a crackpot.
Look at the last of the links at the end, about India's moon mission:
http://exopolitics.org/Exo-Comment-81.htm
http://exopolitics.org/Exo-Comment-81.htm
I'm highly dubious about the conspiracy theor
And where would this ancient source of wisdom have gotten it from, do you
think?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Judy, important to repeat that I did not myself hear Maharishi say this. But
it makes sense to me and if he did say it, I'd say he got it from an ancient
source of w
That isn't a problem with Harris's definition, it's a problem of inadequate
understanding of the nature of the practice (possibly the result of poor
instruction).
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Richard, the problem with Sam Harris' definition is that it might lead people
int
And these wise and ancient women would have known this how, do you think?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Judy, ancient source of wisdom would get it from wise and ancient women...
On Saturday, May 17, 2014 11:25 AM, "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]"
wrote:
And where w
I think everyone understands the word he used, "nonjudgmental." And it fits
right in with New Age thinking about avoiding judgment. "Destroyed" makes no
sense. You can't destroy a word. Plus which, Sam Harris was born in 1967, right
at the beginning of the New Age.
And finally, I doubt anyone
And they perceived and observed the accuracy of this idea how, do you think?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Judy, from their own experience and that of other women they experienced as
being mostly accurate in their perceptions and observations.
On Saturday, May 17, 2014 11:33
Anybody have any idea what she means by "old Yahoo format"?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
Buck, herein I'm responding from Neo rather than old yahoo format.
On Saturday, May 17, 2014 10:20 PM, "dhamiltony2k5@... [FairfieldLife]"
wrote:
No, MJ it is odd and unique. I
Michael's posts have always looked just fine to me on the Web site. Maybe the
problem is on your end, Buck.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
No, MJ it is odd and unique. It is something [bad and unconventional] with
you. -Buck
mjackson74 writes:
I'm just using yahoo mail
101 - 200 of 1336 matches
Mail list logo
