--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > I haven't fisked one of Barry's posts in a while, but this > one is so rich in fiskworthy assertions, I can't resist. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Well said. Comments interspersed. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't get off on eastern spiritual superlatives, sorry. > > > > In any case, you have the same propensity for fence sitting > > > > an issue and abstractly equivocating everything with everything > > > > that nm did. He also used to stick up for Vajihad. > > > > > > I just come back to the 'fence-sitting', because I had to look > > > it up. (I hate it if I have to look up too many words in articles, > > > not being born in america, because people speak overly slang - > > > in the above sentence three words). So, I think that I have made > > > my POV very clear on several occasions, for example regarding > > > MZ/RC, Vaj, Judy and many others. Of course, making a spoof, or > > > being satyrical, some people will not get my point, and I leave > > > it somewhat open. Also, of course, I will try to be friendly to > > > people, and respect them, even if I strongly disagree with their > > > POV. > > > > Some will *never* get your point. If it presents them in > > any different light than the one they want to be presented > > in, that is. > > Note that the person in the above exchange who is not happy > about being presented in a different light than the one they > want to be presented in is zarzari, not whynotnow.
Judy, I think you are not quite right here. The spoof, which some may not get, was about Robin, and Barry was about the first to catch this, about 2 min. after I had posted it. See here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/299493 > And > zarzari has a perfect right to object to what he feels is an > inaccurate presentation, as does anybody else. Goodness > knows Barry does it often enough. > > As to not getting the point of a spoof, that has nothing > to do with whynotnow "being presented in a different light > than the one they want to be presented in" in this > exchange. As noted, that isn't what was happening. I guess the reference was about Robin, not whynotnow. > And if we wanted to go back and check, we'd find many > instances of Barry himself having completely missed the > point of a spoof. He's notorious for it. > > > One thing you might not be aware of, but that > > may provoke some humor, is that the person who is trying > > to give you a hard time for being (in his view) the cyber- > > reincarnation of a former FFL poster has himself posed as > > *several* different personalities here, only a couple of > > which he has ever admitted to. Can you say "projection?" > > I think you can. :-) > > But that wouldn't be what whynotnow is doing, of course. > > zarzari, you might want to ask Barry to name the "several > different personalities" whynotnow has posed as, and which > ones he has not admitted to. > > You might also want to ask Barry how many different > personalities *he* has posed as in the past (not on FFL, > as far as we know, but on alt.meditation.transcendental). > > > > Being ironic and satyrical is sometimes a lighthearted manner > > > of pointing something out without being confrontational. Not > > > being confrontational, I do not force a person to answer or > > > respond. I will never write a 5 part answer to somebody and try > > > to force it down their throat, as a condition to continue to be > > > friendly to them. How enlightened, or de-enlightened is that? > > > > About in the same ballpark of "enlightened" as your corres- > > pondent's flippant "I will share my shroud [sic...meaning > > holy relics, after he dies) only with those who read my > > posts." Yup, that's sure the image of enlightenment and its > > essential compassion we've been presented through the ages. :-) > > Notice that it's fine for zarzari to be "ironic and satyrical," > as far as Barry's concerned, but not for whynotnow. Apparently > Barry has been presented "through the ages" with an "image of > enlightenment and its essential compassion" that excludes being > ironic and satirical on occasion. > > > > Also, I am very much differentiating, that is to say, I agree > > > with people on certain points, but not on everything, and of > > > course, that is normal for most here I think. I can now choose, > > > what I emphazise, the points I agree with or the ones I disagree > > > with, and believe me or not, over the time, I have chosen both > > > approaches with the same people, and that includes you. You are > > > not even aware of that. > > > > > > Another aspect that plays a role here for me is, that I think > > > it is useless to confront a person with 'my opinion about things' > > > if I think that, for whatever reason, which is also part of my > > > opinion about the person, he/she is unlikely to accept a different > > > POV in the matter - it is just useless. As Barry rightly points > > > out, it is not a matter of 'winning' an argument. So in some > > > cases, I simply have chosen to poke fun once in a while, hoping > > > to hilight a certain aspect of a behaviour I find disagreeable > > > or manipulative or whatever. > > > > As some wit has said, it's like having an argument with > > a pig. It never accomplishes anything, and it only pisses > > off the pig. > > > > What I find fascinating is that -- IMO, and from my some- > > what biased POV -- several of the posters on this forum > > who are the most fundamentalist (in the sense of having > > rigid, fixed beliefs), the most reactive (in that their > > emotional buttons are the most easily pushed, causing them > > to lash out angrily), and the most confrontational (in that > > they seem to feel the need to turn discussions into "battles" > > and "win" them) are THE VERY ONES WHO EITHER > > CLAIM TO BE ENLIGHTENED OR CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN > > IN THE PAST. > > In capital letters, yet. > > Barry appears to be losing his ability to count. He refers > to "several" posters, but in fact there are only two here > who have claimed either to be enlightened or to have been > in the past--whynotnow and Robin, respectively. > > > Does this compute? Are they DERANGED? They are speaking > > to an audience that has been told for years the qualities > > one should expect of an enlightened being. Non-attachment. > > Non-reactivity. "Line on water." Being able to see Unity > > in diversity. etc. > > Aside from the impossibility of deciding whether any of these > characteristics apply from a person's behavior, aside from the > willingness to accept the dictates of authorities as to what > does and does not constitute enlightenment--or even understand > what they imply--the DERANGEMENT in this case seems to me to > involve holding someone to the purported standards of a state > of consciousness they say they aren't in any longer. > > > But on a daily basis they present the opposite. And then > > they get uptight and even more fundamentalist, reactive, > > and confrontational because people don't believe in > > their supposed "enlightenment." > > Again, remember that one of the two people Barry is talking > about says he is no longer enlightened. The other has shown > over and over again that he doesn't *care* whether anyone > believes in his enlightenment. He tweaks Barry when Barry > expresses his disbelief because Barry's such a dork about it. > > As to "fundamentalist," obviously that doesn't apply to > either individual. But by "reactive and confrontational," > Barry refers to the fact that both these people smack him > down hard whenever he gets above himself. > > > In my view, *every* claim of enlightenment ever made in > > human history was just that -- a claim. NOT ONE OF THEM > > can ever be proved. But it's fairly easy to *disprove* > > the claims, if the claimants walk a completely different > > walk than the one described by the talk of the tradition > > they claim to come from. > > Readers can decide for themselves whether a claim to be > enlightened can ever be disproved in this manner. But it's > fascinating how a person who consistently mocks and rejects > any appeal to authority is so willing to appeal to it > himself when he wants to use it to put down those he > doesn't like (i.e., those who give him a hard time). > > Some of us here feel it's not necessary or important or > even *interesting* to try to determine the accuracy of > claims to enlightenment (if it were even possible). Why > Barry has such an intense personal investment in > "disproving" such claims is left as an exercise for the > reader. > > And just one more point: Barry has a convenient tendency > to slam people without naming them. He does it because it > gives him, he believes, license to say *anything at all* > about them without having to worry about readers being > unable to match the characteristics he lists with the > people he's referring to. It's typical of his > unwillingness ever to be accountable for what he says. > > Unfortunately in this case, his descriptions of the two > people he's talking about have inadvertently identified > them quite specifically, so it's easy to determine which > of the things he says about them are true and which are not. >
