--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok wrote: > > > > > > Barry, just to let you know, I clearly appreciate your input > > > on this, WHILE IT WAS GOING ON, so as I perceive this post > > > being directed to me, I feel your concern in a very positive > > > way. > > > > As I said, navashok is lacking in integrity, to put it mildly. > > Because I agree with Barry?
Because you are supporting him in his ludicrous and knowingly false characterization of what goes on on FFL as "stalking," in general, and specifically with regard to our argument yesterday (which *you* started). > That's all the criterion you ever have right? Hell, no. This is just the latest instance, as you know. > And it's wrong, because I know what Barry INTENTS to say, > and appreciate him for his ATTITUDE. What does he "intent" to say, and what is his "attitude"? > > What the article Barry posted was describing had nothing to > > do with anything that was going on or ever *has* gone on on > > FFL. Barry knows that, navashok knows that. > > According to your own admission, which you obviously don't > remember, you not only expressed, that you would prefer me > not being on the forum, but said to one of your piling-on- > comrades at the time, when you were engaged in some kind of > slugfest with me, 'that's the way to do it. Soon he will > give up' (not literally). Sorry, this is entirely inadequate. You can't remember what I actually said, or to whom I said it, or even when, let alone the full context. I suspect you're either making it up out of whole cloth, or deliberately misinterpreting what I said. Most likely I was referring to the fact that you pop in and out of FFL. Unless I simply meant you would give up on whatever the argument was (if I even used those words). At any rate, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "cyberstalking." > To chase somebody on a public forum where everyone can post > and flood them with negativity, as you do it, under whatever > pretext, is actually quite possible, and obvious in your case. No "chasing" is involved, first of all. We're all here together in the same place. Second, you and Barry both have chosen to "flood" me with negativity. You have been attacking me on a regular basis ever since I called you on your speculation about another participant's purported personality disorder. And Barry, of course, has been obsessed with attacking me since even before I got here, as I found out *after* I got here (not to mention repeatedly lying about how I purportedly have followed him from forum to forum for the sole purpose of attacking him). > In this sense, the article was indeed relating to this type of > behavior on FFL, and it is even more obvious, why you of all > people don't like this to be discussed. I have no objection to anyone discussing my behavior (as long as they're honest about it), nor do I have any problem with folks discussing cyberstalking, as long as they don't try to portray it as what happens on FFL. And when they *do* try to portray it as such, quite obviously I'm not at all averse to "discussing" it. > The article clearly explained that one of the tactics of the > stalker was obsessive flooding with emails. This corresponds > directly to some behavior here, as flooding with posts can > occur here. It does not correspond. This is a public forum, and anything one person says about another can immediately be contested, in public. Furthermore, if you actually read the article, you know that what the stalker said in her emails was of an entirely different order than what anybody has ever said here about another participant. Plus which, she began sending emails alleging serious misbehavior on the stalkee's part (all false) to associates of the stalkee, which he only found out about when they asked him about her accusations. Wait, I take that back. Barry accused me on FFL of having badmouthed an opponent of mine (back on alt.m.t) to his employer. That was entirely, completely false, and he knew it. That's close to the kind of false accusations the stalker in the article made. Fortunately Barry made the accusation in public, so I was able to refute it. (Although for all I know, he's made it to others in private. But at least my denial is on the public record.) > In addition to the normal stalker, who is usually just a single > person, you have on groups the phenomenon of piling on. Bullying > and psychological harassment are all similar behaviors, and are > known to occur in Internet forums, and on Facebook and studied > by psychologists. That may be, but it has nothing to do with "cyberstalking." It's a different phenomenon. It would never occur to me to call it "cyberstalking" when Barry or you "pile on" or engage in bullying and psychological harassment. > > Commenting negatively on something someone said in a post on > > an Internet forum is not "stalking" by any honest definition. > > If it were, almost all of us here would be "stalkers," Barry > > and navashok most definitely included. > > > > The motivation for calling this "stalking" is very simple: > > It's an attempt at revenge by Barry and nashoka on those > > who make negative comments on their posts because they are > > unable to refute the comments, and when they instigate > > arguments in an attempt to do so, they are unable to "win." > > Total BS of course. In the case of the thread we just talked > about, YOU were asking ME, if I didn't know what my mistake > was supposed to be!! I did not ask you any such thing, liar. > Give me a break, you didn't even make an argument. I made plenty of arguments. I am not going to make an argument for why Robin would have no interest in reading Aurobindo. I simply noted that as you described the work of Aurobindo's you recommended he read, it would not constitute an effective response to his POV regarding the "Impersonal." I know that from reading his posts. That you *didn't* know that can only be because you haven't read his posts, or didn't understand what you read. > > They can't hold their own, so they portray themselves as > > victims. And they bring nothing but dishonor on themselves > > by doing so--especially since they themselves are far more > > guilty of the behavior they complain about than the folks > > they claim are victimizing them. > > Now you are talking a little bit too collectively. With all > appreciation of Barry that I have, he could be rough with > people. That's not me though. You have not reason to accuse > me of any kind of similar behavior. Oh, please. Want me to quote some of the things you've said? And I'll remind you of your speculation--in his presence-- that Robin had a clinical personality disorder; plus your quotation from one of his books written 30 years ago along with your suggestion that it represented his current thinking--all in his absence. Both incidents were disgraceful. > My simple appreciation of Barry, which does not relate to ALL > his posts and opinions makes you say that this would prove my > lack of integrity and my dishonesty. Not at all! Right, not at all. It was your support of his claim about cyberstalking taking place on FFL--which both of you know is false--plus your dishonesty in your gratuitous attacks on me, plus my experience of your utter lack of integrity every time you've gotten into an argument with me. > That I acknowledge the positive points in a person, and that > I can see - from within his own perspective - the integrity > and the wisdom that he expresses, that makes you think that > I am dishonest? No. Being deluded is not the same as being dishonest. > It only shows your own lack of empathy, you are a social > cripple who is unable to wish your opponent even a happy > birthday or a happy new year!! You think that would be > hypocrisy!!! It sure would be hypocrisy. You're willing to engage in it, I'm not. Has nothing to do with empathy one way or another. > It speaks volumes about you!!!! Look how you treat Richard > over the years, how arrogant and full of contempt you speak > of him, despite of the fact that he supports you I don't have much respect for Richard, you're quite right, especially when he tells lies or attempts to mislead. I rarely interact with him otherwise. His "support" for me, such as it is, is meaningless. > (except in political questions.) I may not agree with him, > but I NEVER tread him that way! I should point out that I've known him a lot longer than you have. Your constant appeal to > your own supposed intellectual superiority is simply disgusting. Oh, tell me where I've appealed to my own intellectual superiority. What "disgusts" you, in fact, is that I point out your intellectual deficiencies and integrity problems. Most people here are at least as smart as I am. > > Neither of them will even try to address what I just said, > > because they know it's accurate. > > Because they know that you are thickheaded, and nobody actually > cares about your endless quibbles. (snicker) Obviously you do, or you wouldn't have attempted a response. But as usual, you've made a mess of it.
