I have no delusions about enlightenment, Curtis, mine or anyone else's. Nor do I believe in it. Sometimes stuff just happens. Nonetheless, if you must judge me, judge me as ME, not some bullshit excuse to put down enlightenment. And while you're at it, please remove your false teeth. :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > Imagine my surprise reading this: (actual explicit terms used will be > substituted for non offensive ones) > > Jim: > > > I've made a joke or two about your man crush on Curtis, and believe I made > > reference to you "practically wetting yourself" in anticipation of his > > postings. Nothing sexual though. I never said, "Barry should wear a JOHNSON > > SHAPED RAINCOAT before he has CABOOSE PLEASANTRIES with Curtis", or "Barry > > oughta brush his teeth before ORALLY MASSAGING THE TROUSER TROUT OF > > Curtis", or "It would be tough to give Barry a VAYU ENHANCED GENITAL > > CLEANING, not cuz his VEDIC IMPULSE is so small, but because he never > > learned to wipe himself properly, and he stinks!". > > Why are the sexually explicit attack rant tantrums so similar between the two > individuals most invested in selling us all on the idea that they are > functioning from a specially enhanced state of consciousness extolled by the > Vedas as the goal of all human development, the highest state of human > attainment and the one where if one so chose, he could enjoy CABOOSE > PLEASANTRIES or ORALLY MASSAGE THE TROUSER TROUT of the creator of the > universe himself? (Or I assume if she turns out to be a chick...well you > known, just switch some stuff around and go for it.) And why are both so > inappropriately homoerotic? > > What was my grievous offense, that might deserve this stretching of the > boundaries of propriety on a public board? And why should I be the target > since I had nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion? > > With my interest in the educational development of children I have been > exposed to some perspectives on tantrum behavior and I believe it may apply > here. Here is the scenario: > > Let's call the kid Ravijimbo for the sake of this demonstration. > > Ravimimbo: > "Can I have a lollipop?" > > "This sentence, when uttered in a crowded supermarket, has the power to > invoke a racing heart and sweating palms in many parents. > > The answer is no. The child raises her voice. The answer is still no. The > child drops to the floor. The answer turns into a discussion and the child's > voice increases in volume. The tears flow, the shrieks begin and, after a few > parental self-conscious glances at near by shoppers ? the answer becomes > yes." (From an internet tantrum info site.) > > > So what is the lollipop being denied that in the context of this public forum > leads to this meltdown behavior going way beyond what is necessary to make > their point? I believe it is that I withhold the thing they seek, going > along with their self-perception that they are living in a superior state of > mind than the rest of us. I have never attacked either of these guys in this > manor, but I am an outspoken advocate for a POV which negates the core of > their claim to be living in a state extravagantly termed enlightenment. > > So we have two similar meltdowns which escalates the behavior in public to > the extreme in an attempt to express the rage felt at being denied the one > thing they most covet, and which they feel entitled to: being treated as if > they are the specialist boy in the whole wide world. "Yes they are, yes they > are, where's that smile, there it is, there it is." > > Your outburst was childish and uncalled for Jim, as was Ravi's before you. > You seem like a kindergartner lacking in self-awareness and self-control,(I > hear TM is good for that.) throwing obnoxious sand into the eyes of readers > here. I hope you will do a little introspection during your much deserved > time out. > > If you really look deeply into your heart of hearts, you may find that I am > not the only one who has doubts about your superior state of mind. And if > you can face that, I'm here to say that it isn't so bad seeing yourself as an > ordinary person. Your self-delusion sets you up for this kind of fall. Why > don't you orally massage THAT lolli? >
