Check your sent messages....this thread has evolved in many directions, including one that you chimed in on that has absolutely nada to do with the original letter written by Robin.
>________________________________ > From: emptybill <emptyb...@yahoo.com> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 3:20 PM >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi >Chivukula > > > > >How about this challenge. > >You, Barry and Emily stop highjacking this thread and make one of your >own. > >Barry can then promote his "there is no truth but opinion" and feel >accomplished. > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> >wrote: >> >> >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: >> > >> > --- 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. >> I don't care if he does or not. But if you are participating in a >forum >> like this, (or especially this forum), then you are going to be >> challenged. And if you feel that the person or persons making the >> challenge are sincere, even if they may be harsh, then I would think >you >> would want to respond. Otherwise you may appear as though you don't >> have the wherewithal to back up your claims or opinions. But as far as >> I'm concerned he has no obligation to respond to any challenge. People >> will draw their own conclusion about what motivates people here. I >will >> have to read the rest of this post later. Thanks. >> >> I think it says something about someone if they are willing to face >> others who may want to question them about >> > > 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. >> > >> > > > > >
