> So how do we know that > > 1. Turq was stung by recent posts? > > 2. That he was in fact, 'badly' stung, rather than just merely stung to a > lesser degree? > > 3. That he has changed his behaviour as a result? > > 4. That he is just playing nice?
Its a pattern. Judy has been on forums with this guy for a long, long time, and this is what he does. I don't see Judy closing the door on Barry's future behavior, though she is mocking his consistency re: returning to bastardhood. It is rhythmic, bastard-bastard-bastard-nice-bastard-bastard-bastard-nice-bastard-bastard-bastard-nice. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > > > Having indulged, without much success, in attempting to characterise peoples' > inner life and experience by observation of their outer character, and on > FFL, primarily by what and when they write, I find it difficult how one can > generate so much information by this process, which would seem fraught with > potential error. > > Supposedly, on a spiritual forum, we are all 'evolving' somehow, leaving the > past behind. Human memory is very fallible, and neuroscience has been > demonstrating recently that each time we remember something, we are basically > rewriting the memory, and that those memories modify each time they are > re-written - shift and change as a result of current circumstances, so that > in time the memory is often different from what actually transpired (as > perhaps could be recorded by video). So we end up with a distorted rut in our > mind about those past occurrences. > > So how do we know that > > 1. Turq was stung by recent posts? > > 2. That he was in fact, 'badly' stung, rather than just merely stung to a > lesser degree? > > 3. That he has changed his behaviour as a result? > > 4. That he is just playing nice? (even total bastards sometimes can be > naturally nice). Maybe he is just pretending to be nice; maybe he is having a > really good day. I do not know Turq, but I can imagine him being nice, but I > can't know if that or its opposite is true based on his posts here. Posts > here often play off of what someone else has written before, and the > character of that previous post might determine the response one might dream > up. > > Correlation is not causation. > > If Turq writes, as he says, just for the fun of it, I can consider this as > very possibly a 'true' statement, then coming to conclusions about what he is > feeling on that basis would seem to be hypothesising to the nth degree. > > If Turq has even a reasonable degree of spiritual progress in his life, even > if it is stalled now for some unknown reason, the likely-hood he would be > even upset by what people say here would be remote. > > Turq is quite good a provocation. I did an experiment. I took one of his > posts and removed all the asterisks and quotation marks, and it read kind of > academically compared to the original version. I call these emphasises he > puts in emotibombs, because they seem designed to incite an emotional > response. > > As such he is providing a means for us to notice how we react mechanically to > a given scenario, how our intellectual constructs are tied to our emotional > quirks; whether they serve us or undermine us. Emotion, and the consequent > lack of rationality that often pertains to emotional states are subtly tied > to our intellectual life. > > For example, persons with certain types of brain damage that eliminates > emotional responses to situations have a terrible time making decisions. The > connexion between our supposed rational thought and emotion is often not > noticed, and when we think we are being fully rational, the opposite can > clearly be the case. > > One might note that Turq's posts, for all their provocative qualities, are > actually rather emotionally cool, pretty much like a crowbar mechanically > being used to lift up a rock to see what is festering under it. > > One only need read the opinions section of newspapers to appreciate this > where one's like or dislike is expressed concerning a specific situation. > Turq's post generally are not like this. (Of course here, I may be making the > mistake of inferring a person's internal state from what they write. So to > create some balance, one has to read opinions pro and con, and that often > results in no resolution of the situation either.) There are many surmises as > to Turq's inner state, some of which I have imagined myself, but are there > any incontrovertible facts? Especially current facts, not things that > happened months ago, or years ago? > > All the posts here can have this effect of stirring our hidden agendas, if > such agendas exist, but particularly if they contain attacks on what we think > is true, or contain personal attacks. Besides having the various spiritual > illusions represented by this group, there are also politically conservative > and politically liberal persons here as well. I find it interesting that > spiritual growth does not seem to have much effect on political > polarisations, even though spiritual growth supposedly gets us closer to > truth. > > As for Turq returning to 'normal': Why should we imagine him to have beliefs > and a personality that must remain in a straight-jacket, forever stuck in a > certain mindset. It is a convenience, but lazy intellectually to characterise > people in a certain way, but perhaps that invites the question of why we > would want someone to not have an opportunity to change, to either grow or > deteriorate, as the case may be, and gradually or even suddenly become > someone we might never had suspected before? And I mean that for everyone > here. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > > > Nice troll post, Turq. Seriously, both well-crafted to offend > > > almost everyone, and well written in a conversational tone to > > > draw the suckers in. Good job, lil' guy! > > > > You can always tell when Barry has been badly stung by > > a criticism: he ostentatiously makes a bunch of posts > > that attempt to exhibit the opposite of what he's just > > been criticized for. > > > > Having been pegged as a well-poisoner, his next three > > posts after the ritual troll post were upbeat and > > complimentary, one currying favor with Bob, one > > exclaiming about the new photo of Saturn, and one to > > Yifu saying how much he always enjoys Yifu's links to > > old photos and artwork, for the first and only time in > > the many months Yifu has been posting them. > > > > Let's see how quickly he returns to normal. ;-) > > >
