--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Thanks for everyone who responded to my question about our > > relationship to dead people like Jesus. As I had hoped I was able > > to read some fascinating perspectives. Some really took the ball > > and ran into some complex worldview shifting perspectives, Turq, > > Marek, and Edg (special mention goes to Edg for the pantsless puja > > story which had me laughing. Perhaps the follow up string can be > > "Can Guru Dev see your weiner?"), Sal came through with funny, > > appropriate song lyrics as usual ( I would like to have my way > > with your CD collection baby!) > > > > The amazing thing to me is how mainstream the concept is of Jesus > > loving you from beyond the grave. Presidents can drop it into > > speeches with no notice made. Interestingly, if they declared that > > Poseidon loved them, or that they loved Poseidon, the S.... would > > hit the fan. It is an interesting litmus test for world views, > > although some of you raised the bar pretty high above my > > pedestrian concerns. (they are my boundaries and I love them more > > than Jesus!) > > > > Then Tom and Cindy dropped a bomb that had me off and running > > again... > > > > From the feeback to my original reaction I see how this post > > also is a good one to ferret out our worldviews. Rick gave > > a completely different perspective on the incident. I assume > > that for Rick the value of an "awakening" is high, and as a > > momentary lapse in breakfast serving followed by self-reported > > good parenting, my comments were not on the mark. Judy > > commented that I was exaggerating this incident's effect > > on the kids and I agree. > > Just to clarify: You were exaggerating the situation > itself, perceiving it to be chronic and more seriously > neglectful of the kids' needs than the data warranted. > > My point was that *even as a single incident* it could > be traumatic for the kids, not just at that moment but > long term, *especially* if the mother were normally > highly responsible and rational. Depends a lot on the > kids' age, though. > > <snip> > Judy also > > mentioned the need to talk straight with the kids to avoid > > the weirdness factor, although "mommy is a multi-dimensional > > being" may need some translation. > > Actually I was thinking plausibility in the kids' eyes, > and not necessarily "straight talk." All I can come up > with off the top of my head is something about Mommy > fell asleep and had a bad dream, and you know how when > *you* have a bad dream, honey, sometimes when you wake > up you think it's still going on, and the monster is > still there about to pounce on you, but all you need is > for me to tell you it's gone, that it was just a dream, > and you're fine. > > <snip> > > If the story can be taken at face value, we have kids > > trained to not disturb mommy during meditation so powerfully > > that they overcame their own hunger for hours. > > You're exaggerating again. Unless these kids were > teeny-weeny, they were perfectly capable of grabbing > something from the kitchen to tide them over. And if > they'd been really terrorized about disturbing their > mother, they wouldn't have approached her at all. > > More likely, they weren't hungry so much as they were > impatient for the promised treat. For that matter, for > all we know, they were so absorbed in their play they > weren't even thinking about pancakes until they'd gotten > tired of whatever game they were playing. > > There's a pretty wide range of possible backgrounds > to the tale as it was told to us, from horror story > to BFD. You seem to have convinced yourself it was a > horror story without even considering any of the > other more benign scenarios. Earlier you did the same > thing with Guru Dev and MMY. Seems to me that's a > tendency you might want to have a close look at.
And speaking of tendencies, let's look at a few of them you were so quick to dismiss earlier today about yourself. You claimed that my suggestion that the lion's share of what you bring to this group is negativity and putdowns was falsity or outright lying on my part. Well, honey, let's "run the numbers" for the last few weeks of your participation here on FFL, shall we? In the 30 days since March 19, 2007 (the first day that the five-post rule went into effect), you have made 167 posts. Here's the breakdown of what those posts "contributed" to Fairfield Life: Positive: * Discussing a topic calmly, without rancor, and without insults -- 21 * Being funny and lighthearted and enjoyable -- 2 Neither Positive Nor Negative: * Questions about the five-post rule itself -- 8 * Reposting someone else's thoughts and ideas, without comment - 15 Negative: * Ragging on the five-post rule itself -- 12 * Ragging on Rick (at least one slam against him in the post) -- 14 * Ragging on Vaj (at least one slam against him in the post) -- 13 * Ragging on Curtis (at least one slam against him in the post) -- 16 * Ragging on Barry (at least one slam against him in the post) -- 29 * Ragging on other FFL posters (at least one slam against someone) -- 22 * Ragging on politicians/public figures (at least one slam in the post) -- 15 Honey, you've been on the rag. Physician, heal thyself. When you can go a week without dumping on someone like Curtis because you're feeling shitty about yourself and have to project it onto someone else, on that day I will have some modicum of respect for you. Not until.
