--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius > > Ah, I see, you claim to be a cop qualified to discern > who is guilty of infractions and hand out tickets. But > you seem to be carrying around a loaded pair of dice, > because this is hardly the only time you've singled me > out. > > Look, Xeno, I could not possibly be less interested in > taking enlightenment lessons from you. If you want to > engage me in the realm of duality, you will (a) come > down from the mountain; (b) observe duality's rules of > fair play; and (c) not retreat back up the mountain to > avoid dealing with the issues you've raised. Otherwise, > I don't recognize your authority to hand out tickets. >
Judy, I didn't have to respond to Xeno, you have stated it beautifully in the above paragraph. Xeno, you seem to be a really nice guy but in your defense of Barry sound eerily similar to a fella named tartbrain who hasn't posted here in a while. He would start talking about non-dual stuff when situation in the duality would require us to show respect for truth, values and morals. Like I said before, you might in conflict prefer intellect at the expense of taking a moral and ethical stand. > Have I made myself perfectly clear? > > <snip> > > So, do you feel you project your inner feelings and musings > > and ideas onto others as you discuss them, or do you feel > > you do not do this? > > Not anywhere near as much as you imagine. > > I might point out that some of us here have had much > longer experience with Barry than you have. He can be > very impressive at first blush because of his skill > with words, but ultimately that skill fails to hide a > barrenness and lack of authenticity, as well as a > profoundly malicious hostility toward most other people. > > Some folks realize what a malignant presence he is on > this forum more quickly than others. > > <snip> > > As far as I can see, Barry conserves his energy for what > > he likes to do. > > Which is, mostly, putting down other people. > > > If he does not engage in an argument, perhaps he knows > > this, perhaps not, but he is saving himself a lot of work > > by not engaging. > > And some of us see this as lazy and/or fearful. Again, > if one is going to hand out tickets, one has to be > prepared to defend them in court. > > But that excuse for not engaging doesn't hold water in > any case, because he has enormous amounts of energy > invested in fantasizing about his critics--not just > about their inner lives but about factual elements of > their behavior and what they've said. > > One of his comments on MZ's posts, for example, was > that MZ has been attempting to convince people to > accept Jesus. Anybody who's actually read what MZ > has written knows that's flat-out factually false. > > And then his post this morning in response to yours, > which was a compendium of ludicrously false assertions > about MZ and me "trying to lure people into tarbaby > arguments that [we] then don't allow them to leave." > > Those are just two of the very recent examples. His > history of making stuff up about his critics is very, > very long and very, very extensive (and very, very > well documented). This is, in fact, one of the main > reasons he no longer responds to criticism of his > posts, because he's found trying to defend his > falsehoods ends up doing him far more harm than good. > > Whether he *believes* what he says is always a > question. It's never been clear whether he's a chronic > liar or simply desperately self-deluded, but either > way, it's a tremendous amount of mental and emotional > labor to construct and maintain those demonstrably > false views in the face of reality (not "Reality," but > on-the-record, ordinary factual reality). It does seem > to be the only way he knows to preserve his self-image. >
