I hear you and though I may not agree, I accommodate your viewpoint - I don't always get the subtext of everything and I also have no interest in going back to spend hours trying to understand past dynamics. It has no relevance to how I interpret, but I acknowledge that puts me at a disadvantage sometimes and supports the idea that I should listen more than not, and watch the play unfold, which is one of my goals moving forward with FFL.
I really enjoy these videos and perhaps I will work on my interpretation of said "sexual" acts given also, Obba's post. Remember, I am an American woman and my filters, based on my personal experiences and also my corporate background as a woman are likely different from yours. Now, I am about to listen to that 47 minute musical piece of Jagjit Singh, et. al., you sent as I love his voice - as I take down my Christmas tree and get on with the daily appointments. I haven't counted my posts of late, but am being quite prolific again and don't want to post out on a Friday. ________________________________ From: zarzari_786 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2012 11:22 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: New Rule? Was (Happy new year to everyone !!! (And more love bombing..) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Emily, I very much agree with Barry on his analysis, it is spot on. There is > a lot in the context, you don't understand, you *cannot* understand, no blame > to you for that. The example Barry gave, I found was hilarious, and there we > may have different perceptions, about using sexual language. But for me, > devoid of any sexual content, this simile was symbolic, especially because of > the 'teeth'. And, you know, I fear putting out the teeth won't help in this > case, they very much have a life of their own. And now, as I said, enough - > bas - caalu. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg1qgCspMPI
