--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > FYI, the pictures Turq posted could probably be seen on > > billboards and city buses. > > More to the point, they're among the images of their > "TMer heroines" that they would find if they just > searched Google Images for their names. That's what > I did; that's where these photos came from. > > I'm just fuckin' tired of Buck's act, when it swings > prudish and Fundamentalist and nasty, as it just did. > Buck has a tendency to dream up things that push *his* > buttons, and then pretend that they push a lot of > other people's buttons in Fairfield, the never-named, > almost-certainly-imaginary people he "interviews." > I'm calling bullshit.
Well Buck got you going here too Barry, buttons and all. I find it a little unlikely you are quite as offended as you are making it sound however, all sound and fury and all of that... > > I think -- whether or not he believes that his Buck > act is an act or not -- it reveals a great deal about > buck and *HIS* samskaras, *HIS* hangups. I don't think > that there are either "MSAE children" or children of > any other stripe reading this forum, and if there were > I give them far more credit than Buck does. They've > seen, dealt with, and handled (as Bhairitu says) images > of these TM heroines themselves, and almost certainly > *they weren't affronted by them*. I am sure you are correct Barry. But you know what, we all know and realize this, you can stop beating that dead horse now. Your outrage seems feigned. > > Unlike Buck, they probably grew up comfortable with > sexuality -- their own, and other people's -- and > don't feel threatened by it. Pretty big generalization here. > > > The link to "Boogie Nights" was for the trailer not the > > movie itself and could be shown on broadcast TV. Don't > > be such a prude. > > And don't be such a solipsist as to believe that you > have the RIGHT to enforce your prudery on others. We > get it -- you're not comfortable with this century. You > prefer to imagine "spiritual" as having to do with > communes full of women in granny dresses, among the > past cults you revere. Free Clue: all those people are > dead, and so are (with only a few exceptions) the so- > called spiritual lineages they hoped to found. Now you're on a roll. Fun isn't it? > > One of the reasons these movements died a much-deserved > death is that they took it upon themselves, as believers, > to tell their neighbors, the unbelievers, how they should > live their lives. And now they're all dead, and so are > the movements they thought were so holy, and so immortal. > Their neighbors forgot them, and so should we. What movements? Who as believers? What neighbors? When did they die? Who died? Who's on first? > > Meanwhile human sexuality lives on, and refuses to hide > its head in shame because people like Buck think it should. What does sexuality's head look like by the way? > > Protect the innocent "MSAE children" from images they > could see -- and should be able to see -- on their computers > or on TV or elsewhere any day of the week? Get real. Good point. > > The people who we should be concerned about protecting > these children from are people like Buck. They could > grow up to be like him. Oh nasty, Barry, low blow. That Buck, he may be a bit prudish but on the plus side he doesn't post pictures of true believers in granny dresses and Birkenstocks. > > > On 07/30/2012 11:30 AM, Buck wrote: > > > Friends; we should think of the children here, the > > > MSAE children who may be reading this site. These > > > fellows who posts this stuff seem to have no filters > > > what so ever. Right now the adult decision needs to > > > be taken by our moderators to remove these guys for > > > the spiritual safety of our children and the well- > > > being of a larger community here. > > > With the best of concern and regards for all, > > > -Buck in FF >
