--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@...> wrote:> Judy, "out of control" is just scratching the surface of what is going on here. Curtis and Barry are having an orgiastic climax at the moment. I am discovering that there are no limits here for them. They actually feed, thrive and grow more monstrous on other people's, normal human being's, outrage and sense of violation of what they are putting out here.>
"Normal human beings" being violated by the "monstrous" Barry and Curtis, oddly coupled in an orgiastic climax... It would be easy just to chalk this up to some person going off on the Internet with a general ad hominem attack that says more about them than their intended target... but, this is a poster who as spent a considerable amount of time scolding the group about it being full of low life gratuitous personal attacks and distancing herself from this behavior. So I think it is only fair to give Ann a chance to make her case concerning the critical claims she makes below. Let's have a look and see if I can distinguish this from the kind of post she has chastised in the past. > > I am not sure what the answer is; push against it or ignore it? But whatever > posters choose to do, statements made and behavior exhibited by Curtis and > Barry are indicative of something seriously wrong with them.>> "Push against"...mmmm....I am detecting a trend in the figurative language. Let's see what it is that is the perceived flaw. <It is not about burning men, inappropriate posts or past perceived wrongs. It is more about spewing vitriol because it gives them some sort of perverted rush to watch otherwise reasonable people react.> It was about hypocrisy and contriving something to attack Barry on under the virtuous guise of: Oh the inhumanity of it all,for me. I guess I am to assume that you Ann are proposing that you represent the position of the "reasonable" here, which makes it all the more important to ask what those reasons might be for the charges. <They have an addiction to reaction, but only violent, shocked, negative, outraged ones.> My point was that some people are acting hypocritically here. Can you explain what supports a charge that I am looking for a "violent" reaction? Can you explain what that might mean in the context of a discussion board like this? Is this a description of how you yourself are reacting to my posts? How do you distinguish my attempt to point out a perceived flaw and your own? How is what you write that is critical different from what I am writing here on your inciting violence scale? < I hate to put words out that are remotely aimed in their direction because this kind of malevolent eye starts to slowly turn my way, unblinking and full of hatred - for me and for life. It is about as horrendous as I have ever witnessed. > "Remotely aimed"? WTF? Would a direct aim involve you nailing the post to our skulls? The "hatred" claim is really the reason I decided to give you one chance as a credibility test Ann. On face value this is a pretty inflammatory charge that I don't believe I deserve. But then you have stated your opinion that I am neither reasonable nor normal, so I will have to leave it up to you to defend this position that I am full of hatred for you (given our pretty friendly exchanges that seems like an odd charge to me) and "life" itself, which is even more baffling as an accusation. Why do you believe that I have expressed hatred for you and in what way have I expressed hatred for life itself? What do you mean by these statements from your reasonable, normal POV? Given the status of your accusation, that it is the most horrendous you have ever witnessed, I feel sure you must have some pretty juicy material from me that I have been blinded to due to my lack of normalcy and enhanced powers of hate. You have made the dramatic choice to equate it by reference to the unblinking eye of Mordor, which as we all know, was the reason for all the problems of Middle Earth. (How cute were those furry footed hobbits, really!) So the ball is in your court to do with as you wish Ann. I am giving you a chance to distinguish your insights from any other fey generic putdown with a dash of drama queenery thrown in to amplify the charges into the melodramatic superlatives you have chosen to express them in. > > They have convinced > > themselves that as a team, they're invincible. But all > > they're doing is helping each other reveal their own > > weaknesses. > > It is invulnerability which is a result of lack of feeling. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > You got it Barry. That tousle headed rapscallion Nabbie barely > > > made a blip on the outrage meter with his using a burning human > > > being as a putdown of your and a whole religion which, of course, > > > you rightly notice is a bit of a trend. (constantly) > > > > Note that my prediction that Curtis would not correct > > Barry's lie about *Curtis's own post*--which had not > > a thing to do with Buddhism--was 100 percent accurate. > > > > <snip> > > > How many posts were focused on a Yo mamma parody of Oprah? > > > > One from me, until Curtis attempted disingenuously to defend > > it. The rest of my posts were focused on that defense. > > > > > Did it get a "this is offensive, please take it down"? Nope > > > it got the full monte of outrage. > > > > The original got *one single post* from me. And no, I > > didn't ask that it be taken down. It wasn't as offensive > > as Nabby's post; it didn't feature a ghastly photo of > > a human being dying in agony for a cause he believed in > > soley for the purpose of a cheap shot at Barry. > > > > That Curtis attempts to draw some kind of equivalence > > here is just more evidence of his hypocrisy and > > disingenuity. > > > > > Any twist of phrase from you like "a bit off" gets both > > > barrels. > > > > The only reason Barry got more than one post on his > > "a bit off" was his vicious dissing of Ann for daring > > to object to the phrase. > > > > Barry and Curtis are out of control. > > Judy, "out of control" is just scratching the surface of what is going on > here. Curtis and Barry are having an orgiastic climax at the moment. I am > discovering that there are no limits here for them. They actually feed, > thrive and grow more monstrous on other people's, normal human being's, > outrage and sense of violation of what they are putting out here. > > I am not sure what the answer is; push against it or ignore it? But whatever > posters choose to do, statements made and behavior exhibited by Curtis and > Barry are indicative of something seriously wrong with them. It is not about > burning men, inappropriate posts or past perceived wrongs. It is more about > spewing vitriol because it gives them some sort of perverted rush to watch > otherwise reasonable people react.They have an addiction to reaction, but > only violent, shocked, negative, outraged ones. I hate to put words out that > are remotely aimed in their direction because this kind of malevolent eye > starts to slowly turn my way, unblinking and full of hatred - for me and for > life. It is about as horrendous as I have ever witnessed. > > They have convinced > > themselves that as a team, they're invincible. But all > > they're doing is helping each other reveal their own > > weaknesses. > > It is invulnerability which is a result of lack of feeling. > > > > > > > > > > A fucking burning human being. > > > > > > Oh, that little scamp! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Seems to me that if Judy Stein were as "fair and balanced" > > > > as she claims to be on this forum, she would be able to > > > > produce at least one post (other than the recent one, which > > > > can arguably be attributed to Curtis shaming her into making > > > > it) in which she criticized either Nabby or Jim for their > > > > religion-bashing. > > > > > > > > Nabby has made over 500 posts bashing either "Buddhists," > > > > "Buddhism," "Tibet," "Tibetans," or the "Dalai Lama" (or, > > > > as he prefers to spell it, the "Dolly Lama") over the > > > > years at FFL. > > > > > > > > Jim Flanegin made over 200 posts bashing the same subjects. > > > > > > > > Surely, given her oh-so-evolved sensibilities about "fairness," > > > > she can come up with a few posts she's made suggesting that > > > > this might be a "little off." > > > > > > > > If she'd commented on even 1% of them, that would be seven > > > > posts that she'd be able to find and repost here, wouldn't > > > > it? IF, that is, any such posts were ever made. > > > > > > > > I think we all know that none ever were. > > > > > > > > Could this be because Nabby's posts are "mostly jocular > > > > Buddhist-bashing aimed at Barry and Vaj?" Or because > > > > Barry and Vaj are "the most vicious, intemperate, and > > > > dishonest bashers of TMers on the forum" and in Judy's > > > > view (as she just stated) Nabby's posts don't really > > > > give them the "bashing they truly deserve?" ( Perhaps > > > > Judy would like to give us that bashing herself. I for > > > > one would like to read it. :-) > > > > > > > > Or could it be that Nabby's "jocular" posts, such as > > > > the recent one, are merely "poking fun" at Vaj, I, and > > > > 350 million Buddhists in the world, whereas our posts > > > > about TM and TMers are "vicious attacks and insults?" > > > > > > > > Does anyone detect a double standard here? > > > > > > > > Perhaps, since she will be unable to find any posts > > > > in which she has criticized Nabby or Jim for any of > > > > their "jocular" posts ragging on Buddhism and Tibet, > > > > she could find a few posts of mine and Vaj's that > > > > she feels are "vicious attacks" and repost them. I > > > > look forward to seeing them, because I suspect they'll > > > > be of the same ilk as the "death threat" she claims > > > > was made against her here on Fairfield Life. That is, > > > > pure vindictive drama queenery. :-) > > > > > > > > > >
