So, it's all about Jim.
TurquoiseB wrote:
> > > "...because deep down they know i'm right..."- Vaj
> >
> > that's some serious delusion going on. this guy has now had
> > no less than 12 posters call him directly on his BS, and
> > this is what he comes back with- the adult equivalent of a
> > child insisting that the whole world is wrong, and he alone
> > is right (and holds the unvarnished truth).
>
> While I -- similar to Protestants in Salem,
> MA -- do not suffer claims of "unvarnished
> truth" to live :-), I think that the "count
> the number of posters dumping on Vaj" game
> calls for another game.
>
> How many posters here believe that the person
> saying the above is, in fact, our own beloved
> delusional Jim Flangin, he who once posedethed
> as sandiego108, and who now poseth as (ath?)
> enlightened_dawn11?
>
> If there be more than 12, doth that make Vaj
> the "winner?"
>
> Doth it make Jimbo's entire post (poth?) an
> exercise in projection?
>
> For example, *who* has it been, historically,
> who has taken the stance here on FFL that "the
> whole world is wrong, and I am right?" See how
> funny this game could be?
>
> I knoweth not the answers (answereths?) to
> this medieval "How many assholes can pretend
> to be angels dancing on their own pinheads?"
> koan, but suggesteth merely that a re-read
> of this post as if the poster were really
> talking about *himself* would be an
> entertaining exercise in humor.
>
> > i think Vaj was hoping that he could be our resident and
> > pet Dalai Lama, dispensing wisdom, and clearing the haze
> > of ignorance from our eyes.
>
> See what I mean? Jimbo disappears, reappearing
> as sandiego108, from whose lofty perch he con-
> tinues to dispense his brand of wisdom on the
> undeserving, ignorant masses of Fairfield Life.
>
> Enter laughter, so much laughter that sandiego108
> runs away with his tail tucked between his legs,
> just as Jim Flanegin did, foiled in his second
> attempt to become the resident "dispenser of wisdom,"
> and "clearer of haze."
>
> Next, enter Dawn, proclaiming, "I'm new here," and
> *in "her" first post*, making claims of knowledge
> about future events that no one here could have
> possibly known, and that no one (probably because
> of their haze of ignorance) suspected -- that Obama
> would win the election. Surely no one other than
> an enlightened being could have foreseen that. :-)
>
> Follow with more pontifications from on high, never
> with any "backup" from any other source (unlike Vaj),
> only the "pronouncements" of the person presumably
> speaking from the "completion of enlightenment."
>
> See what I mean about "entertaining?" Whether my
> "count the numbers" game has any more validity than
> Dawn's, you've got to admit that looking at this
> stuff from the point of view of *projection* is far
> more entertaining that just looking at the surface
> words, right?
>
> > now that he has backed himself into a very small and cramped
> > corner, there is nothing for him left to do, except vainly
> > and pathetically proclaim us all to be insensitive liars in
> > great denial of the truths that only Vaj perceives (with an
> > adhominem attack thrown in for good measure).
>
> Says the person writing the ad hominem attack,
> declaring Vaj to be an insensitive liar, and doing
> so from the small, cramped corner he has backed
> himself into by being afraid to post as who he
> really is.
>
> Now I ask you -- still part of this exercise in
> entertainment, mind you, not as a declaration of
> any kind of "truth" -- which is FUNNIER? Vaj
> doing what Dawn says above, while dressed in men's
> clothes and having used the same ID during his
> whole time here, or someone so ashamed of their
> past that they have to "dress as" a woman and
> pretend to be one before they can even summon up
> the balls (which would play hell with the cut of
> her slinky dresses and be positively pornographic
> in a mini-skirt) to post at all?
>
> I suggest that the latter image is FUNNIER. Whether
> it's true or not I leave to the readers.
>
> > sounds like every other false teacher i have heard. eventually
> > their fall from grace becomes everyone else's fault.
>
> Again, how does this paragraph read when posted by
> someone who consistently refuses to take responsi-
> bility not only for anything he says, but even for
> WHO HE IS? How does it read when written by someone
> whose entire "career" at Fairfield Life has been an
> exercise in making everything "someone else's fault?"
> How does it read when said by someone who has NEVER
> admitted that any of his faux pas and stupid factual
> errors were errors, and that all of them were someone
> else's fault for not being evolved enough to under-
> stand them?
>
> So that's my little game, proposed in response to
> Dawn's. I think it's not only as valid as Dawn's
> "Let's count the number of people dumping on Vaj"
> game, but FAR more entertaining. I think that my
> game is far more entertaining even than Judy's
> recent, "I've shown my good faith by dumping on
> Nabby; now it's your turn to reward me by dumping
> on Barry" game. :-)
>
> And remember...this is just a game. A fiction. Who,
> after all, would be so lame and so brain-dead as to
> pose as a woman here rather than just admit who they
> were? Certainly not a person who has spent over 30
> years practicing the "highest path" of TM. Certainly
> not a person who has announced in *every* "incarnation"
> their own enlightenment.
>
> So a fiction this is, presented purely for its enter-
> tainment value. Just like Dawn's "Let's count how
> many people I can get to dump on Vaj" game.
>
> But isn't my game more FUN? And isn't laughing at Dawn
> more fun than taking "her" seriously? Because if you
> did that, and happened to *notice* the amount of
> *projection* in "her" writing, that would inspire
> pity and sadness, not laughter. And most of us here
> know that laughter is better.
>
