On 10/22/2011 08:44 AM, authfriend wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > "curtisdeltablues"<curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"<jstein@> wrote: > <snip> >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra<no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> >>>> And I am sure, at least in the case of myself, Curtis >>>> would admit this to you. (But I have a hunch he wants >>>> to cover off for Barry, and he will only tacitly >>>> indicate that I am not far wrong in what I have said.) >>> Bingo. He already did, actually, in a post chiding >>> Bhairitu for his inability to appreciate your dialogue: >> I was chiding him for equating my interest in long >> discussions with a pathology. I was in no way chiding >> him for being unable to appreciate our dialogue. > Um, OK. You chided him for saying nasty things > about you because he couldn't "get beyond his > personal preferences," i.e., was unable to > appreciate your dialogue. > > So if he wasn't able to appreciate your dialogue, > he should have kept his mouth shut, right? > > Wait. What would it have looked like, I wonder, > what would he have said, if he *could* get beyond > his personal preferences? What might he have said > in that case, instead of equating your interest > in long discussions with a pathology? > > I get it now. He might have said you were a saint-- > the "Mother Teresa of the Internet," for example-- > while equating *Robin's* interest in long discussions > with a pathology, one for which you had great > compassion, to "provide these oh-so-needy people > with the attention that they so desperately seek." > > As long as it's Robin who is said to have "an > almost pathological need to use as many words as > humanly possible to convince others of that > [self-]importance, all while coming up with a > near-absolute dearth of creative ideas (or even > original ideas)," and you're feigning interest > in what he says out of your saintly commitment > to "selfless service," that's fine with you. > > That's what "getting beyond personal preferences" > might look like, as far as you're concerned. > > Right? > > I've misjudged you, Curtis. I thought that by > chiding Bhairitu, you were sending a subtle signal > to Barry that he too ought to get beyond his > personal preferences. I should have known better. > >> I don't expect anyone to give a shit about our >> discussion. I would prefer that people didn't try >> to use it as evidence that I have an "overstimulated >> intellect" or too much "vatta" which he went on to >> describe as in modern terms as neurotic. > Right. Fine for somebody to try to use your > discussion with Robin as evidence that *Robin* > is neurotic, as long as you're portrayed as so > saintly as to admire the running sores of the > lepers with whom you compassionately engage. > >> But of course you knew this which is why you >> selectively snipped the sentence before your quote >> when I made that clear: >> >> "Isn't it good enough that you just don't dig what >> we are serving up? Not your cup of tea." > My apologies. I genuinely did not understand > the difference you perceived between what Barry > said (dumping on Robin and exalting you) and what > Bhairitu said (dumping on both of you). I still > don't quite get, however, why the sentence I > snipped should have conveyed that difference. > >>> "This attempt to make it into a pathology just makes >>> you look like you can't get beyond your own personal >>> preferences and understand that other people are >>> interested in different things." >>> >>>> He [Barry] is not maliciously bearing false witness >>>> of course >>> Yes, he is. Why should today be different from any >>> other day? >> Then why were you indulging in it if this is such a >> big deal for you? > I wasn't. As I said, I really did think your > phrase "attempt to make it into a pathology" was > intended to apply to what Barry said as well as > what Bhairitu said. I should have realized, on > the basis of long observation, that it would > never occur to you to object to somebody saying > something nasty and untrue about someone else as > long as they say only nice things about you. > Especially, of course, if it's Barry doing the > saying. > > Silly me.
Who says I didn't "appreciate" Curtis and Robin's ramblings? I appreciated them as what seemed like long ramblings of blind men describing an elephant. My interest was more why would Robin wax on for pages over something if he wasn't vata imbalanced? Curtis is a little more succinct writer. On a political forum I post on a couple of guys have turned a thread or two into their own personal message exchange. The last upgrade took away private messaging where they might have carried on. Most of us ignore the thread but do wonder why they spend so much time and energy on it. In ayurveda, people who are kapha are often of few words because writing takes energy (think Lawson). Pitta people are usually much more succinct and to the point and write more than the kapha person. The vata person has a roar of ideas going through their heads and writes too much and is seldom grounded enough to edit what they wrote. Vata people live in their heads and are often amazed at the flow of ideas that they have. Some of these people carry notepads around or dictate into the smartphone the ideas as they've learned if they don't they'll forget them. In the computer field we often found that vata engineers had a lot of solutions but never finished them. And David Frawely once wrote that some vata people mistake their spaciness for enlightenment. In communication the more succinct and to the point you are the more you communicate with people. I was reading Matt Tiabbi's blog this morning and the article how confused Rush Limbaugh is. It was two pages of writing but good writing that carries you along. That is good writing. With some of the rambles here you begin to realize the author isn't saying anything much after three paragraphs and further reading is a waste of time. I recall how verbose movement publications when they didn't need to be. It was like "if we write a lot of words people will think we are smart." Then I asked Robin in another post if he fancied himself an "archarya" to which he never responded which tells me a lot in and of itself. Not sayin' that Robin isn't experiencing some enlightenment but then I would expect most people too have some experience after years of meditation. Just because they can't turn lead into gold doesn't mean they aren't experiencing enlightenment. :-D
