--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Richard, > > A well poisoner. Nice observation, including all the rest you wrote. In post 363322 perhaps there is a clue. In a response to Share authfriend wrote: > > "P.S.: You're quite right about my childhood, albeit not in the way you hope. I had a happy, stress-free childhood with two parents who loved me deeply and steadfastly. They passed on their own devotion to authenticity and loathing of phoniness to me." > > Whatever she feels is non authentic gets a dose of loathing, i.e., a feeling of intense dislike or disgust; hatred (that is the definition of the word). If you want to change the world, loathing is not the emotion I would want to operate from; it is the antithesis of acceptance, which is what spirituality develops (sometimes anyway). Loathing is the emotion you want to instill if you want to pass on intolerance. It is a blinding emotion.
In the talk on how to detect and deal with liars I viewed as part of an internal IBM education program, the speaker pointed out one particular facial expression that one should *always* be wary of. He showed a photo of Dick Cheney, wearing a snarl characterized by one side of his mouth raised higher than the other and said, "This is *contempt*. Whenever you see it, when in a business meeting, *don't* sign the contract, and instead just get up and leave the room. That is what the other person really thinks of you, and it's never going to change." The aspect of this whole routine that always amazes me when someone trots out the supposedly derogatory buzzphrase "phony" is that the person using this term never seems to be able to define "what" the target of their contempt is being a "phony" AT. The belief at the heart of hurling the epithet "phony" is that the person they are hurling it at is *pretending* to be something that they're not. I suggest that this is pure projection, coming in almost every case from people whose *whole lives* are about pretending to be something they're not. Such people really *cannot comprehend* other people who have no need to do this, so they constantly project their own insecure need to "project an image" onto those they dislike, incorrectly (in many cases) assuming that their contempt-objects have such a need as well. The classic example of this, of course, is Judy trying to deal with someone like Curtis. In my opinion, there have been no posters on this forum more comfortable with just being what they are than Curtis. I don't think I ever saw him "pretend" to be anything other than what he was...the "sum state" of his life, all that had led up to him being who and what he was, in that moment. But to Judy, he was a "phony." A "phony" WHAT, Judy? *What* exactly did you believe that Curtis was trying to pretend to be? *What* exactly do you think that Share is trying to be, or that I am trying to be when you call us "phonies?" *Why* do you think that someone would ever have the need to try to "project an image" and convince other people to believe it? Could it possibly be because that's what YOU do, on a pretty much constant basis? Which of the people you have claimed were "phonies," for instance, have ever said something as stupid and as *obviously* untrue as "I never lie?" YOU have said this, many times, and everyone here except you knows immediately that it's not true, and that you're lying when you say it. Wouldn't that make YOU the phony in this scenario? When you pretend to "know" what people "really" mean by what they wrote, when there is no possible way for you to "know" that, aren't YOU being the "phony?" Save your contempt for yourself, Judy. You're the one who demonstrates the behavior you claim to loathe the most on this forum. > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@ wrote: > > I've been an respondent on the internet since 1999, so it's not like I'm a newbie or something. And it's been my observation that Judy has a really big ego, maybe bigger even than Barry, and that's saying a lot! There are facts and there are opinions - facts can be argued, but an opinion stands no matter what, and that's everyone's right to express - you may not agree, but there should be no excuse for slandering your debating opponents. > > It's like when some people call others 'nazis' all the time - it soon loses its force, and in the end doesn't do justice to the real nazi victims. > > At first I thought Judy was being very astute when she called Barry a liar over and over again; then she started going after me with the same tactic. For awhile I thought there was something wrong with me and that maybe I did lack integrity. But now, after Judy called Buck a liar for no reason at all, I've come to the conclusion that Judy is simply a well-poisoner. > > That's her style I guess. > > Hey, I'm all for truthfulness and personal integrity, but I'm just not sure dialoging with anonymous informants in an online chat-room is the place to prove it - this is supposed to fun, not a trial by a one-person judge and jury. > > But, it has reached a level now that she's calling almost everyone a liar, a troll, and/or a poser. > > At this point, she's just a very unpleasant person to deal with and not very informative either. And, there's no relief when anyone starts up a dialog with her - it's incessant and endless. Barry is a case in point - from what I can tell, Judy carries a grudge for a very, very long time. Go figure. > > P.S. You may have noticed that Judy does NOT respond very elegantly to constructive criticism. If anyone can point to an untruth I've posted, please let me know and point my error - be specific, so we can resolve any misunderstandings. Thanks in advance. > > > On 11/27/2013 10:33 AM, Share Long wrote: > > I think Truth is something huge, that cannot really be completely conveyed in words alone. Unless the speaker or writer is communicating from a very settled and integrated level of consciousness. OTOH, unless someone has a nefarious intention, I think most people try to communicate truthfully. But each of us is limited by our connection to Truth. The most trustworthy people, imho, are those who recognize this and intend to become more and more truthful. > > > > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Richard J. Williams punditster@ mailto:punditster@ wrote: > > > Maybe, but I almost always suspect someone of not being totally honest when they post as an anonymous informant. I used to post under various handles until I got outed, and so I decided when I retired, I would just use my real name. I've got nothing to hide and nobody can fire me from my job since I'm self-employed now. But using a handle is no biggie to me because I understand why some people need to keep their privacy. > > But, I did get a little paranoid reading Bill's post where he claimed Ravi had stalked or threatened, to what - expose Bill and his wife. What's up with that? > > That's when things get REALLY nasty around here - I wouldn't blame Rick if he shut down the whole discussion group, if that's what going to happen here on a regular basis! It is always troubling to see someone get banned from the group. Where I used to work, you had to really screw up big time to get fired - like smoking pot in the parking lot or something like that. Hardly anyone gets banned on FFL - Kirk got banned for cursing too. Go figure. > > And, I don't care if people post mean things about me sometimes - it could always just be a joke of some kind - like when Barry2 posted that my real name was Walter White. LoL! > > > On 11/27/2013 8:49 AM, anartaxius@ mailto:anartaxius@ wrote: > > 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth > http://liespotting.com/liespotting-basics/words/ http://liespotting.com/liespotting-basics/words/ We are not face-to-face on FFL, it's all words, words, words. There are those here who make a big deal of their integrity. Perhaps that is a suspect trait. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to me authenticity means knowing what one is, and how everything in the world sets in that, including those vagaries of personality, mind, and body which are a sliver of a much larger whole. This is an experience not a concept, though we have to use a word to refer to that experience. Authfriend's authenticity seems to me to be rather narrow and intolerant idea of what authenticity should be like, rather than what it is. Compared to your current nemesis, I think you have integrity. > > > Now if I have a criticism of you, it would be to drop the LoL comments from your posts. It is not necessary to gloat over one's opponents. As authfriend uses similar kinds of comments sprinkled throughout out a number of her posts, it might be advisable not to emulate the device, otherwise you take on her characteristics. > > > Authfriend seemed rather friendly toward me when I first came on the forum, but once I started to disagree with her, things changed. Barry was the first one, I think, who attacked me, but somehow, his manner of confronting me had a very different feel and sense than Ms. Stein. I think that is because, however you feel about Barry and what he writes here, he is not experiencing loathing when he writes, he is not attached to the emotions that one might imply he is experiencing, at least not deeply, and so what he writes has a considerably more positive direction even when he slams something. But as the confrontation between those two has been going on for so long, it is highly repetitive. I think Barry's strategy is a good one, to not engage directly. > > > As for authfriend, she said she would not have any discussions with me until I apologised for some slight to her phony authenticity, and she has tried to worm out of that by entering into a thread I have started or entered myself by 'making a comment' and proclaiming that to not be entering a discussion. But of course that is exactly how you enter a discussion, by making a comment. >
