--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > This is along the lines of something I was thinking about as > I was driving home from more errands. For the most part, I > think Vaj does reply to his critics.
And why should he? I'll wait. > Exceptions would be you and Jim. And because he does respond > (exceptions noted), I think those relationships have an > opportunity to change, to "evolve" even to a more friendly > ground on ocassion. I have seen little evidence of this. What seems to happen from my POV is that Vaj occasionally responds to the same old same old attacks on him, it goes back and forth a few times, the attackers believing that they've "won" something because they got him to respond, and then it starts all over again. If this is what you mean by "evolving," I leave that definition of "evolution" to you; it strikes me as being as boring and non-productive as the TM version of the word. :-) > Barry, on the other hand has chosen not to respond to anyone > he finds unacceptable. Not true. I have been very clear about who I no longer interact with, and why. I don't bother with people I no longer find interesting in any way. I have my own reasons for this, most of which I have patiently explained. None of the six people on my personal "No Fly" list can write worth a damn, none of them *ever* seem to have anything new to say, and all of them are to some extent obsessives. That is, their onscreen life here seems to revolve around "getting" one or more of the people they have developed grudges against. BORING. If you wish to waste your time on the hundreth or thousandth iteration of "Vaj is a liar," that's your business. I prefer to leave the attackers to their (IMO) petty and demeaning (to themselves), somewhat mentally ill games. > And because of that most (or at least many) of his > relationshiops here are frozen. No chance of change. With those six? Absolutely. Not one of their "one year countdown clocks" have started ticking yet. They need to demonstrate a full year of non-obsession and actually saying something new before I bother interacting with them again. (See previously-reported conversation with the psychiatrist head of a mental hospital for my reliance on this rule of thumb.) With others, I am open to being surprised, and equally open to interesting discussions, should they come up. The thing is, most of the time they don't, because (IMO) most people here are hooked on the ongoing soap opera, and don't actually have that much new or interesting to say themselves. They rather -- ahem, like you -- provoke the same old tired-to-death egobattles again and again, so that they can log in and put their two cents in, as if *they* were saying something new or interesting. From my POV, I reward only things I consider to be *actually* new and interesting. Your life, and how you choose to spend the rest of it, are up to you. Talk with whomever you want, and say whatever you want. But don't expect me to chime in as if it were interesting if I don't find it to be. The non-issue of whether Vaj was a TM teacher is as uninteresting as a subject can possibly be. How many times do you have to either hear "<insert name of today's victim> is a liar and SO much less moral than I am" before you find it boring and stop encouraging it by piling on? Wasn't it OLD for you after the hundreth iteration? After the thousandth? If not, I leave you to what fascinates you in life. I have other fascinations.
