---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: > > Ok, turq, here's a question for you: what goes to battle > with ego? There is rarely a *need* for "battle" if there are no egos involved. Barry, egos are a fact of life. Whether you believe the old hokey dokey about becoming egoless sometime in one's development approaching or having achieved some imaginary state of enlightenment then good for you but I think it is a fairytale. In your continued railing against egos all you do is show your own ego, which is fine by me but evidently not fine by you. > Being? Truth? Love? I don't think so. Other egos? Hmmm... > I'd guess yes. But that's just my opinion. > > Once again I don't understand why you get so het up > about people having and sharing opinions. It's what we > all do. Especially after we've survived our midlife crisis! I have no issue at all with people having opinions. It's when they try to present them as something *other than* opinion -- as "truth," or worse, as some kind of cosmic "Truth" -- that I cry bullshit. And you cry "bullshit" precisely why? Well, dear man, because you believe so strongly about what you are crying b.s. about. This starts to look like your "bullshit" opinion is some mega universal Barry "truth". > I think most people share opinions for the purpose of > benefiting others. And *that* is ego. Believing that your opinion is so cool or so "right" or so "Truth-y" that sharing it will "benefit" others. Here is your big demon "ego" again. Lighten up, what did ego ever do to you? Oh, it made you into the opinionated, judgmental person you are, I forgot for an instant. > If they're misguided in that, well, there's obviously a > learning curve involved. And maybe wanting to benefit > others is the last stronghold of the ego. Hmmm... Certainly believing that their opinion has the *ability* to "benefit" others is one of the last strongholds of ego. I think you're making this up. And anyway, if someone is hoping what they might have to offer to a conversation is possibly interesting or new or helpful how does that make it so bad? Oh yea, because you think it indicates "ego" that terrible, dreadful bugaboo. > And really, if you added up all your writing online, I > bet you'd get close to 500 pages (-: But -- unlike some here -- I neither expect people to read what I post, or throw hissy-fits when others don't. Some here actually throw tantrums when people don't *respond* to what they've written. :-) Please show me an example of a tantrum. I have yet to see one. The only hissy fits I've ever seen here are when people do respond to someone else, not when they don't. I think you've got it backwards. But then you have a lot of things just plain old wrong. > About character development, I'm making my way > through the 5 previous seasons of Castle and it's so > gratifying to watch the unfolding of all the different > characters. But of course especially Castle and Beckett > as they realize their love for each other more and more. It's a completely formulaic series, but its strength is in the actors, and the way they "fill out" the characters as written. Nathan is a tour de force in this regard, no matter what he's in, but Stana Katic is pretty good at being interesting, too.
