--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card" <cardemaister@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > I've got nothing much more to say on this topic, > > > but am replying to it anyway to point out the > > > contrast between what I wrote (below) and the > > > angry, panicked, out-of-control, gotta-get- > > > Barry reaction to it by DocDumbass, Judy, > > > Ann, and Ravi. > > > > > > Pretty interesting, wouldn't you say? :-) > > > > No. Or not the way you'd like to think. > > > > No panic, nothing out-of-control. That's your > > fantasy, and also an example of what we've been > > talking about. > > > > The contrast is between what you wrote below > > and the sick, twisted, dishonest, sadistic crap > > you usually write, the gotta-get-Judy/Ann/Ravi/ > > DrD/Robin/whoever hysterical tirades that are > > your stock in trade, the smarmy "I'm just > > pushing buttons" garbage, the faux-Tantra > > nonsense, the utter lack of even the faintest > > wisp of self-knowledge. > > > > You can dish it out, but you can't take it, > > never have been able to take it, not since I've > > known you. You think you're entitled to > > gratuitously shit on anybody you feel like > > shitting on without ever having to take > > responsibility for it. You're a coward and a > > bully and a cheat and a phony and just generally > > a disgrace as a human being. > > > > One pretty little word picture and photo does > > not erase all that ugliness we're forced to > > endure from you. If you feel put-upon because > > you're getting reamed out for your toxic rubbish > > instead of getting strokes for your "creative" > > effort, tough. Live with it. We don't like having > > to live with you either. > > > > Judy, I must say I just can't understand why and how > anybody would be forced to read what Barry, or anyone > else, for that matter, writes... :o
This is not the right question, Card. If one posts on a forum like this one, it is *unnatural* not to see what everyone else is saying. Even about oneself. Is it your inclination *not* to read posts that are addressed personally to you, and which either challenge your views, or disparage your person? I think most persons posting on this forum are interested in expressing their opinions and judgments--that's why they post; that's why they read what others post. This response of yours, you think it answers to all the acrimonious debates that have raged here on FFL? You think it the *solution* to the fierce contesting of what is true, what is right, what is real? It is a small-minded idea and it cost you nothing. If people are cruel or unfair or dishonest--or if they are sincere or fair or honest: this means something. To propose what you do here, in what way does that possibly encompass what it means to be a human being with an investment in your beliefs and feeling for what should count in the universe? No one is forced even to read anything on FFL--or even post on FFL. Why not, since there is so much violent argument, just quit reading and writing on FFL? Why, in view of these intense disagreements, not have everyone just stop contributing to FFL *so it can just shut down*. When you make a suggestion like this, the criterion of is validity has to be: Does my suggestion somehow take in the reality and meaning of what happens on FFL in the controversy over who is right and who is wrong? It seems like a perfect solution--what you say here--but does it seem as if that would have prevented all the tension and disputation that seems so serious here on FFL? Again, in argument, in life, one wants to bring an idea or proposition that really gathers as much reality into itself, so that it is a just and sensible and *meaningful* idea. Yours is the equivalent of saying: Well, if you were hurt in love, why ever get romantic with someone again? If you don't like the NRA, why do you read about what they have to say about the massacre in Newtown? You would make your proposal something more significant and truthful than authfriend's sincerely felt analysis of the sweet and disinterested consciousness in Holland. If I read authfriend's post and then I read yours: Is is possible to believe that your post essentially makes authfriend's post (about the Holland guy) superfluous? Look at the response from Holland (to your post): this is the proof of how irrelevant and meaningless your admonition was. Hamlet is a tragedy--it makes people sad. Why not just read comedy?
