--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Did anyone notice that the bash-Barry fest last night > > was all ABOUT afflictive emotions? > > > > One drama queen, still smarting from a largely imagined > > offense months ago, misrepresents what happened, *in order > > to get some kind of 'payback' to the person who he still > > has a grudge against*. > > Has anyone noticed that Barry is LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH? > Dan DID NOT MENTION BARRY'S NAME. He used the phrase "a > member of FFL." > > The only reason Barry was identified as the guilty party > was that Curtis was outraged and demanded to know who it > was, and I went back and looked it up. (And of course > when Curtis found out it was Barry, he backed off fast.) >
As you know Judy, this is an inaccurate portrayal of what went down. Since you yourself made a post to Dan making my objection clear, we both know that you are not being truthful here. There is a name for that is that you are doing, but it slips my mind... When I made my post to Dan I was outraged by his claim. (Not the faux one) I purposely made my statement unequivocal. Whoever had purposely gotten a poster's wife's email in order to send her offensive emails deserved to be cast out to the outer darkness for all of eternity. The line that our spouses and family should be off limits hit home, I was on board for the cause immediately. I meant it and I didn't care if it turned out to me sleep posting on some bad combination of ambian and bourbon, lurching about my home and banging out offensive emails to other people's wifes whose email I had somehow gotten in my somnambulistic trance. So you sent me the links and I read them. And those posts did not support the claim that someone had somehow gotten a poster's wife's email address in order to harass her. What I found was the typical FFL scrum with fur and accusations flying, but no smoking gun for the claim that someone had gotten a poster's wife's email in order to harrass her. I repeated my specific objection numerous times so that there could be no lack of clarity in what I objected to and what it was that made me call "bullshit" on the claim. Trying to draw attention away from my ligitimate objection you attempted to get me interested in your regurgitated meal of FFL rancorous non- communication as it dried into the carpet and even small dogs took a sniff and split. (And they love regurgitated crap) As if my non particiapation the first time around was not enough of a message that I didn't care about the hilarity that ensued in the clusterfuck misadventures of people who hate each other finding each other despite all odds on a SPIRITUAL internet forum devoted to sharing insights into the meaning of life, and who said what to whom when that person said the other thing to some other person and it just wasn't right. Like if Hollywood scripted spirituality in the dialogue for a Nickolodian sitcom set in Junior High. "Oh that Mr. Foxworth is so boring in class that I fell asleep and drooled all over my rudraksha beads." "Oh no, not the ones that Kevin gave you on Guru Purnima! What are you going to do on your walk to the dome if he notices..." And scene. So for you to try to spin my position as some kind of unfair Barry bias, as if I was operating in bad faith concerning the claim and the lack of support in the referenced posts is a blatant ....um...it's on the tip of my tongue, its a small word, one that is rarely invoked here on FFL, an obscure little word probably derived from the Latin...it will come to me soon enough...damn almost had it but it slipped away again. I'll just have to settle for this in liu of the right word for the job: Judy is knowingly misrepresenting my objections and is creating a false impression ment to mislead the readers into drawing an erroneous conclusion concerning my POV and my stated postition and this was not an innocent error, but is a malicious attempt to obfuscate the truth and perpetrate a falsehood, something not true, lacking in veracity and honesty....shit I am so close again, there is that word dangeling in the air right in front of me so close I can almost touch it....gone. Complete blank. I guess I'll try my Thesaurus app to see what small word would sum up this verbose paragraph, making my point in three letters or less if possible. I'll have to get back to you. > Three more lies in that single sentence: (1) Dan did not > misrepresent what happened. (2) The offense was by no > means "largely imagined"; it was fully and openly > intentional. Barry *boasted* about it and posted the email > he sent Dan's wife. (3) If Dan holds a grudge against > Barry, it's because Barry has repeatedly attacked and > insulted him. > > I submit that one of the most telling signs of a person > indulging in "afflictive emotions" is lying. > > And the lying doesn't stop with the above: > > > The next person, bearing even more of a grudge, piles on > > and tries to expand this fit of dwelling in the past and > > drama queen hysterics, and tries her best to get as many > > other people involved in it as possible. > > Only two others got themselves involved, Curtis and Bob > Price, neither of them at my instigation. Nor did I make > any attempt to get anyone else involved. > > <snip> > > This was all about afflictive emotions. Two people with > > a *grudge they cannot get over* leapt upon the first > > excuse presented to them to act out about it again. > > Addicted to the Spite OS, they just couldn't wait to > > indulge in it again. > > Both Dan and I are constantly subjected to spiteful > attacks by Barry. One doesn't "get over" a grudge when > the offenses are ongoing. > > And again, Dan did not mention Barry's name. If Curtis > hadn't decided that the perpetrator should be exposed, > Dan's brief reference to an anonymous member of FFL > would have been the end of it. > > > You may see this whole thing differently, but that's how > > I see it. It's about indulging in the afflictive emotions, > > and the residual obsessions that form in those who *do* > > indulge in them when they do it for many years. > > The truly amazing part of all this is that despite all > his preaching about "afflictive emotions," Barry is > incapable of recognizing that he indulges in them himself > *all the time*, as he does in this post. >
