Several of nature's people I know, and they know me; I feel for them a transport Or cordiality;
But never met this fellow, Attended or alone, Without a tighter breathing And zero at the bone.* *for confirmation of Emily's experience, read Barry's post to obbajeeba. (Another Emily) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Just for fun, Steve, especially because I didn't read a > word of the rant that you're referring to, but can almost > certainly tell you what it said, and what motivated it. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > For instance, I feel it would be cruel of me to ask you > > > to read my last long post to Barry. And why is this? > > > Because the extent to which it was successfully exposing > > > Barry's weakness, is precisely the extent to which you > > > would not like it. And in fact, you *couldn't* continue > > > to read it—for this very... > > > > I read about a third of it. And you are right, I *couldn't* > > read anymore. > > That's because you're sane, Steve. :-) > > I didn't read any of it, but I can tell you all about it. > First, it was long, at least a couple of thousand words, > the result of easily half an hour or an hour's worth of > ranting. Second, it went through my post point by point > and tried to turn each point into a condemnation of me, > "pointing out my weaknesses." Third, it was so badly > written that only someone with abysmally low standards > (like an avid Dan Brown reader) would be able to make > their way through it. And fourth, it was so obviously an > "attack on Barry" that no one other than a person who > already had a grudge against him would *want* to read it. > > Also, it was "cruel" to ask you to read it, but it wasn't > cruel of him to write it, or to demand that I read it. > > How'd I do? :-) > > The reason I'm bothering to comment is to point out some- > thing that has been pointed out before by Vaj and to some > extent by Curtis -- the fact that Robin's act *has not > changed in the least since he was a faux spiritual teacher > in Fairfield*. It's the same old same old. He's an abuser. > > Back in the Bad Old Days, RWC would drag his followers up > on stage and yell at them (and possibly even strike them), > "pointing out their weaknesses" and telling them exactly > what kinds of demons were possessing them. > > Now think about the post you're talking about, or his many > posts to Curtis or Vaj. Does the pattern sound familiar? > That's exactly what he has tried to do since Day One on > FFL to Curtis and to anyone else who doesn't treat him as > "special" or authoritative, and allow him to preach at them. > So *of course* that's what he would have done with me in > the post you're referring to. > > My crime? I think he's a total ego-dork, and don't find > him interesting enough to bother with. The crime of the > people back in Fairfield? Who knows. But we DO know one > thing -- in both cases 1) he felt that it was his RIGHT > to abuse someone by "pointing out their weaknesses" or > their demons, and 2) he felt that it was almost the DUTY > of the person being abused to not only stand there and > take it, but be somehow grateful for it. That's classic > abuser mentality. > > What a load of ego-crap. What insanity. > > *Especially* in a followup to a post originally (I assume) > criticizing me for telling Obbajeeba that I wasn't at all > impressed by her whiny pleas for more of my attention. I > got the feeling from Message View that both he and the > Judester thought it was BAD of me to suggest to her that > she might be better served by getting a life of her own > than by obsessing on the lives of others on this forum. > > So what does Mr. Formerly Enlightened do? He obsesses on > me, and runs his standard abuse number again. I presume > that, as he did with Curtis, he inserted all sorts of > comments as needy and whiny as Obba's, suggesting again > that it was almost my DUTY to reply to him and debate > with him, and what an awful person I was if I didn't. > > Well, I didn't. And I won't. He's just not worth my time. > Guess that makes me an awful person. > > But, if you think about *time*, and the efficient use of > it, I would have to say that I think I'm winning. I don't > bother to read ANY of his silly ego-rants, because by now > I know what they'll all say without bothering to read them. > Same with the other people on my Don't Bother With list. > > But *THEY* are so obsessed with me that *they read every > word of every one of my posts*. They probably read them > multiple times, trying to work up enough faux outrage and > hatred to fuel a stinging reply. > > Seems to me that obsession is its own reward. They're > trapped in a samskaric cycle that they cannot escape from. > They're in EXACTLY the position they want *me* to be in, > but which they cannot achieve. They have to sit there and > read every word I write, whether about them, or about > anything else. > > As Ravi might say, they're my bitches. :-) > > And they will continue to be as long as they continue > obsessing on me... >
