[FairfieldLife] Bones and stuff!

[card]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlrjNEMPSQs

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > >
> > > I am saying is he should shit or get off the pot (to put 
> > > it rather crudely). I am making no value judgements here 
> > > about the quality of the discourse or even the value of 
> > > it. It is just that Curtis keeps coming back for more 
> > > all the while lamenting his "predicament". I am just 
> > > tired of hearing him whinge, that's all. Either he 
> > > should get on with it or move along to the next subject.
> 
> Before commenting on your reply, Curtis, which was IMO
> just Right On,

Except for the fact that he completely misinterpreted
what Ann said, of course.

 nailing the somewhat the somewhat 
> questionable sanity of Ann's interest in all of this,
> I should point out that she has a point. 
> 
> Contrary to what others have said here recently, YOU
> did not "come back to FFL" as a result of Robin's 
> presence here.

Nobody said that was the case this time.

 As I remember it, this last appear-
> ance of his was occasioned by YOUR return to FFL.

You "remember" incorrectly. This last appearance of
his was occasioned by one of your especially
loathesome posts.

> He "came back" specifically so he could rag on me
> in Judy's absence, and when I didn't react to his
> provocations,

His post wasn't intended to get you to react, you
self-important twit. And why you think it had
anything to do with my absence is unfathomable.

 he turned his attentions to you, hoping 
> that he could lure you back into one of his 
> "confrontations."

O, BIG LIE. But Curtis won't correct Barry.
He's happy to let Barry lie for him. That way
he doesn't have to do it himself.

Robin didn't say a word to Curtis until Curtis
leaped to defend you in response to Robin's post.

I guess Curtis is just a fag hag who doesn't think
you can defend yourself, huh?

The rest of this is so obviously insane I'm just
going to snip it.

(snip)

Oh, except for this, can't resist:

> As only an insane person would dispute is the nature
> of Robin's game. The man is positively DERANGED behind
> keeping you "in the game." I mean, he claims that 
> succeeding in getting you to respond to him is "making
> you come." THAT'S FUCKING CRAZY, man...over the top, 
> straight jacket stuff.

Absolutely the funniest thing you've ever said,
Barry. Inadvertently, of course. Curtis is
cringing as he reads it, and everyone else is
snickering up their sleeve.

No kidding, Barry, you have had your day as far
as debates on FFL are concerned. Your mind has
become far too muddled to follow them. You really
need to just stick to your little travelogues.
 
(snip)

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> >
> > I am saying is he should shit or get off the pot (to put 
> > it rather crudely). I am making no value judgements here 
> > about the quality of the discourse or even the value of 
> > it. It is just that Curtis keeps coming back for more 
> > all the while lamenting his "predicament". I am just 
> > tired of hearing him whinge, that's all. Either he 
> > should get on with it or move along to the next subject.

Before commenting on your reply, Curtis, which was IMO
just Right On, nailing the somewhat the somewhat 
questionable sanity of Ann's interest in all of this,
I should point out that she has a point. 

Contrary to what others have said here recently, YOU
did not "come back to FFL" as a result of Robin's 
presence here. As I remember it, this last appear-
ance of his was occasioned by YOUR return to FFL. 

He "came back" specifically so he could rag on me
in Judy's absence, and when I didn't react to his
provocations, he turned his attentions to you, hoping 
that he could lure you back into one of his 
"confrontations." In this, he succeeded. After all 
this time, you should know his tactics, and his
intent, and know better than to get involved. But
it's your choice; you seem to be getting something
out of interacting with him, so if so, continue,
as long as it is fun or interesting for you. I am
not in a position to criticize this, having been
sucked into similar "confrontations" with Judy 
for so many years. Finally I decided they -- and
her -- were simply not worth my time. 

Now, to what you said, re Ann...

> My interaction with another poster is causing YOU 
> discomfort.  Think about that.

That's really the issue with Ann's involvement here.
Nothing that goes on between you and Robin concerns
her in the least, but she *takes advantage of it*
to berate you and defend Robin. Given the fact that
we are talking about a person (Ann) who was verbally 
and psychically abused by Robin for 3-1/2 FUCKING 
YEARS, one simply has to wonder WHY.

Ann's act has always had a "Patty Hearst" feel to it
for me, as if she's still carrying a torch for the 
cult leader who captured her attention and sucked her 
into his sick games so many years ago. I still cannot 
help but believe that it is her attachment to the 
intensity that cult experience had for her that drives 
her sad defense of Robin all these years later, and her
inability to see that HIS ACT HAS NOT CHANGED. 

He is *still* trying to run the "I'm in charge here...I
am the cult leader and you *have* to stand there and
let me yell at you because *I* know you better than
you know yourself, because I'm so...so...special and
all...further more you *have* to respond to my yelling" 
act. He tries to run it on you, on me, and on whoever 
else he thinks he can get to fall for it. 

So *many* people here have commented on the nature of
this act that it is incomprehensible to me that Ann
does not, or can not, see it. 

> The issue here is not how I choose my interactions with 
> another poster. It is about the reaction you are having 
> to it.  

Bingo. 

Ann has *no place* in the interactions you choose to 
have with Robin. Neither does Judy, or any of her other
minions. WHY do they keep trying to insinuate themselves
into the situation? 

> And one of your blind spots is that you don't have to 
> read any of it.  But you do.
> 
> Obviously there is a level of interest in the interaction 
> for me, but it is not unlimited, and I enforce my own 
> level of interest boundaries, despite being goaded to 
> continue ad infinitum. I continue till I have expressed 
> what I wanted to express and then I stop.  

As any sane person would. 

> There is no end with Robin until I end it and that cycle 
> has repeated itself here many times.

As only an insane person would dispute is the nature
of Robin's game. The man is positively DERANGED behind
keeping you "in the game." I mean, he claims that 
succeeding in getting you to respond to him is "making
you come." THAT'S FUCKING CRAZY, man...over the top, 
straight jacket stuff. 

( At the same time, it is quite revealing that he feels
that way about the "confrontations" he tries to stage.
He probably felt the same way when he was yelling at
Ann onstage. In his mind he wasn't abusing her; he
was making her come. )

> So your advice IS a judgement about the value of the 
> interactions for me, you think I should stop or if I 
> continue, I shouldn't complain about how Robin is 
> acting in the discussion. I have never complained 
> about the choices I have made to interact with him.  
> But somehow the way I am interacting with him bothers 
> you in a way that the way he is interacting with me 
> does not.

Of course. YOU are not submitting to his abuse. She did.

> Think about why this would be important to YOU.

Exactly. 

> You are working out your own stuff that is getting 
> triggered from my

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ravi Chivukula]

Awesome response, I love you Steve :-)

On Apr 8, 2013, at 9:10 PM, "seventhray27"  wrote:

> Good show Ravi.  You're right on time.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes I agree - I think this is the only way idiots can make a difference, by
> > being courageous, outrageous, brazen bravado is the key. This is the only
> > way they can create the illusion that their views, support have an equal
> > weight on this forum and force a response from others. All idiots should
> > look up to Steve, being restrained, shy will surely lead them to doom.
> > 
> > I think MJ's entry into FFL with his brazen, moronic, Appalachian swagger
> > has definitely rubbed off on Steve, helped his confidence - he's got that
> > extra zing after dealing with an even bigger idiot than him.
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote:
> > 
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > See Steve, this is why I appreciate you. And I will tell you something
> > > that might make you blush because, actually, I believe you are a healthy,
> > > gently, reasonable person PLUS I think you are one of the more courageous
> > > posters here. Why? Because you NEVER hesitate to answer a post, to go into
> > > the lion's lair or what may not turn out to be a dangerous place but still
> > > COULD be. You will take a chance and you will respond. Whether people 
> > > agree
> > > with you or think you are a blundering fool is not the point. The point is
> > > I believe you to have integrity and strength that is born of a gentle
> > > spirit. If I have told you once I have told you ten times: you are a good
> > > man. And never forget it.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your blind is showing again Ann. Glaringly so. I don't know how that
> > > > > > could be possible, but it is.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is a "blind"? spot (my bad)
> > > > >
> > > > > > Your pulling rank here is pretty nonsensical.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, there is no pulling rank. I am simply stating that if Curtis does
> > > > not enjoy what Robin writes, or the position he feels he is being put in
> > > > he should just stop engaging. Even his good buddy Barry has told him
> > > > that time and time again.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think you might be missing the spirit of the exchanges here. The
> > > > purpose is that hopefully we communicate in such a way that maybe we
> > > > have little breakthroughs. That maybe we further our understanding
> > > > about things. And I think that can be a pretty persistent hope, so one
> > > > continues to post in that spirit even when it doesn't seem to be
> > > > happening. Does that make sense to you, or are you one for throwing in
> > > > the towel at the first sign of resistance. I don't believe for a second
> > > > for that to be the case.
> > > >
> > > > I find Curtis to be extremely patient. And for whatever reason I find
> > > > him to be the reasonable one in these discussions. I perfectly
> > > > understand if you don't, but I reserve the right to comment if I feel
> > > > that you, or anyone else is a little off base. And certainly you do
> > > > that with me. So, let's live and let live.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Life is "nonsensical", all the time. Can you make heads or tails of
> > > > it? I can't. And anyway, I have lots of scars to show as a result of my
> > > > time around Robin. Some were inflicted by him, some by my friends and
> > > > some by myself. It is a simple fact: I went through a kind of war and I
> > > > wear those scars as badges of honour. I admit it - I am happy that I
> > > > experienced all of it, grew as I emerged and am the person I am now.
> > > > There is no rank pulling.
> > > >
> > > > That's all neat. But it was some time ago, and now a new chapter has
> > > > emerged. And in many ways it seems quite similiar to what has been
> > > > described previously. That does make me sad a little. But it also
> > > > interesting to see it play out in a new way. It bothered me to hear
> > > > Curtis call Robin a troll, but it is also dumb to make a post as another
> > > > person. It seems the only reason to do that was to elicit some
> > > > response he wasn't getting any other way.
> > > >
> > > > We have all been through our personal "wars" our suffering, our growth
> > > > our battles. What was your greatest personal achievement?
> > > >
> > > > Is it too lame to say that I've made it through another day? Sort of
> > > > that "one day at a time" philosophy. I guess to answer your question,
> > > > it would be being a parent, raising a family, running a small business,
> > > > and trying to stay totally honest with myself, and staying on the
> > > > spiritual path, th

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> >
> 
>  I am making no value judgements here about the quality of the discourse or 
> even the value of it. It is just that Curtis keeps coming back for more all 
> the while lamenting his "predicament". I am just tired of hearing him whinge, 
> that's all. Either he should get on with it or move along to the next 
> subject.>
> 
> My interaction with another poster is causing YOU discomfort.  Think about 
> that.

Curtis, for God sake, I know you are smarter than this. NO! Your interactions 
are not making me uncomfortable. Your lamentations are making me think you are 
torn between wanting to interact and not wanting to. I have said NOTHING about 
your posts.
> 
> The issue here is not how I choose my interactions with another poster.  It 
> is about the reaction you are having to it.  And one of your blind spots is 
> that you don't have to read any of it.  But you do.

CURTIS. You are somehow misinterpreting everything I have said on this subject. 
How is is this POSSIBLE?
> 
> Obviously there is a level of interest in the interaction for me, but it is 
> not unlimited, and I enforce my own level of interest boundaries, despite 
> being goaded to continue ad infinitum.  I continue till I have expressed what 
> I wanted to express and then I stop.  There is no end with Robin until I end 
> it and that cycle has repeated itself here many times.

Yes and you point is?
> 
> So your advice IS a judgement about the value of the interactions for me, you 
> think I should stop or if I continue, I shouldn't complain about how Robin is 
> acting in the discussion.  I have never complained about the choices I have 
> made to interact with him.  But somehow the way I am interacting with him 
> bothers you in a way that the way he is interacting with me does not.

Nope, wrong interpretation. Read me again. For me to say it again is just 
repeating what I already wrote. You have some strange blind spot here. I am 
saying if you chose to jump into the water don't scream about the fact you 
didn't realize it was going to be wet.
> 
> Think about why this would be important to YOU.

Nothing here is important to me, about this subject at least. All I was saying 
was, and here I am repeating myself, you seem to know what interacting with 
Robin is going to result in so if you think you already know because you have 
experienced it at least twenty times before here at FFL, then don't complain 
when it turns out to be what you perceive to be the same thing again. What has 
Barry said on this subject? Not that different from what I am saying. The big 
difference is that he doesn't think you should bother interacting with the 
crazy NPD person and I think you should do what you want but don't then lament 
and cry about it as if you are some long-suffering martyr.
> 
> You are working out your own stuff that is getting triggered from my 
> interaction with Robin.  MY interaction with Robin is not the issue you 
> should be focusing on if you spent three and a half years daily with this guy.
> 
> I'm fine.
> 
> Are you fine Ann?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Your blind is showing again Ann. Glaringly so. I don't know how that
> > > > > could be possible, but it is.
> > > >
> > > > What is a "blind"? spot  (my bad)
> > > >
> > > > > Your pulling rank here is pretty nonsensical.
> > > >
> > > > No, there is no pulling rank. I am simply stating that if Curtis does
> > > not enjoy what Robin writes, or the position he feels he is being put in
> > > he should just stop engaging. Even his good buddy Barry has told him
> > > that time and time again.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I think you  might be missing the spirit of the exchanges here.  The
> > > purpose is that hopefully we communicate in such a way that maybe we
> > > have little breakthroughs.  That maybe we further our understanding
> > > about things.  And I think that can be a pretty persistent hope,  so one
> > > continues to post in that spirit even when it doesn't seem to be
> > > happening.  Does that make sense to you, or are you one for throwing in
> > > the towel at the first sign of resistance.  I don't believe for a second
> > > for that to be the case.
> > 
> > I am only advocating Curtis stop responding to Robin, not because I think 
> > he should, but because he keeps saying that he doesn't want to get pulled 
> > into Robin's game, his repetitiousness, his mind games, his word floods, 
> > his rants. He has said time and time again that he has no interest in 
> > pursuing this never-ending revolving door of what Curtis feels is a no-win 
> > game of semantics. And it goes on. You've

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[seventhray27]

Good show Ravi.  You're right on time.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
> Yes I agree - I think this is the only way idiots can make a
difference, by
> being courageous, outrageous, brazen bravado is the key. This is the
only
> way they can create the illusion that their views, support have an
equal
> weight on this forum and force a response from others. All idiots
should
> look up to Steve, being restrained, shy will surely lead them to doom.
>
> I think MJ's entry into FFL with his brazen, moronic, Appalachian
swagger
> has definitely rubbed off on Steve, helped his confidence - he's got
that
> extra zing after dealing with an even bigger idiot than him.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Ann awoelflebater@... wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > See Steve, this is why I appreciate you. And I will tell you
something
> > that might make you blush because, actually, I believe you are a
healthy,
> > gently, reasonable person PLUS I think you are one of the more
courageous
> > posters here. Why? Because you NEVER hesitate to answer a post, to
go into
> > the lion's lair or what may not turn out to be a dangerous place but
still
> > COULD be. You will take a chance and you will respond. Whether
people agree
> > with you or think you are a blundering fool is not the point. The
point is
> > I believe you to have integrity and strength that is born of a
gentle
> > spirit. If I have told you once I have told you ten times: you are a
good
> > man. And never forget it.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"
steve.sundur@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Your blind is showing again Ann. Glaringly so. I don't know
how that
> > > > > could be possible, but it is.
> > > >
> > > > What is a "blind"? spot (my bad)
> > > >
> > > > > Your pulling rank here is pretty nonsensical.
> > > >
> > > > No, there is no pulling rank. I am simply stating that if Curtis
does
> > > not enjoy what Robin writes, or the position he feels he is being
put in
> > > he should just stop engaging. Even his good buddy Barry has told
him
> > > that time and time again.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think you might be missing the spirit of the exchanges here. The
> > > purpose is that hopefully we communicate in such a way that maybe
we
> > > have little breakthroughs. That maybe we further our understanding
> > > about things. And I think that can be a pretty persistent hope, so
one
> > > continues to post in that spirit even when it doesn't seem to be
> > > happening. Does that make sense to you, or are you one for
throwing in
> > > the towel at the first sign of resistance. I don't believe for a
second
> > > for that to be the case.
> > >
> > > I find Curtis to be extremely patient. And for whatever reason I
find
> > > him to be the reasonable one in these discussions. I perfectly
> > > understand if you don't, but I reserve the right to comment if I
feel
> > > that you, or anyone else is a little off base. And certainly you
do
> > > that with me. So, let's live and let live.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Life is "nonsensical", all the time. Can you make heads or tails
of
> > > it? I can't. And anyway, I have lots of scars to show as a result
of my
> > > time around Robin. Some were inflicted by him, some by my friends
and
> > > some by myself. It is a simple fact: I went through a kind of war
and I
> > > wear those scars as badges of honour. I admit it - I am happy that
I
> > > experienced all of it, grew as I emerged and am the person I am
now.
> > > There is no rank pulling.
> > >
> > > That's all neat. But it was some time ago, and now a new chapter
has
> > > emerged. And in many ways it seems quite similiar to what has been
> > > described previously. That does make me sad a little. But it also
> > > interesting to see it play out in a new way. It bothered me to
hear
> > > Curtis call Robin a troll, but it is also dumb to make a post as
another
> > > person. It seems the only reason to do that was to elicit some
> > > response he wasn't getting any other way.
> > >
> > > We have all been through our personal "wars" our suffering, our
growth
> > > our battles. What was your greatest personal achievement?
> > >
> > > Is it too lame to say that I've made it through another day? Sort
of
> > > that "one day at a time" philosophy. I guess to answer your
question,
> > > it would be being a parent, raising a family, running a small
business,
> > > and trying to stay totally honest with myself, and staying on the
> > > spiritual path, that seems to be laid out before me.
> > >
> > > Does this engender any kind of pride or satisfaction in your idea,
you
> > > perception of yourself? I certainly hope you can say it does. Life
can
> > > exact a heavy toll, survivors have earned the right to a certain
level
> > > of self satisfaction at

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[seventhray27]

Maybe it's the memory of some past exchanges that brought out some good
stuff.

The place is always more fun when both Curtis and Robin are around, or
at least one or the other.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your blind is showing again Ann. Glaringly so. I don't know how
that
> > > > could be possible, but it is.
> > >
> > > What is a "blind"? spot (my bad)
> > >
> > > > Your pulling rank here is pretty nonsensical.
> > >
> > > No, there is no pulling rank. I am simply stating that if Curtis
does
> > not enjoy what Robin writes, or the position he feels he is being
put in
> > he should just stop engaging. Even his good buddy Barry has told him
> > that time and time again.
> >
> >
> > I think you might be missing the spirit of the exchanges here. The
> > purpose is that hopefully we communicate in such a way that maybe we
> > have little breakthroughs. That maybe we further our understanding
> > about things. And I think that can be a pretty persistent hope, so
one
> > continues to post in that spirit even when it doesn't seem to be
> > happening. Does that make sense to you, or are you one for throwing
in
> > the towel at the first sign of resistance. I don't believe for a
second
> > for that to be the case.
>
> I am only advocating Curtis stop responding to Robin, not because I
think he should, but because he keeps saying that he doesn't want to get
pulled into Robin's game, his repetitiousness, his mind games, his word
floods, his rants. He has said time and time again that he has no
interest in pursuing this never-ending revolving door of what Curtis
feels is a no-win game of semantics. And it goes on. You've read what he
has said time and time again. I think it might be great if the two of
them kept talking but Curtis evidently doesn't want to so all I am
saying is he should shit or get off the pot (to put it rather crudely).
I am making no value judgements here about the quality of the discourse
or even the value of it. It is just that Curtis keeps coming back for
more all the while lamenting his "predicament". I am just tired of
hearing him whinge, that's all. Either he should get on with it or move
along to the next subject.
> >
> > I find Curtis to be extremely patient. And for whatever reason I
find
> > him to be the reasonable one in these discussions. I perfectly
> > understand if you don't, but I reserve the right to comment if I
feel
> > that you, or anyone else is a little off base. And certainly you do
> > that with me. So, let's live and let live.
>
> Absolutely. I have not commented on whether I believe Curtis to be
patient or not patient, reasonable or not reasonable, deluded or not
deluded. In fact, the only thing I was saying was what I outlined above,
I don't need to say it again and I won't.
> >
> >
> > > Life is "nonsensical", all the time. Can you make heads or tails
of
> > it? I can't. And anyway, I have lots of scars to show as a result of
my
> > time around Robin. Some were inflicted by him, some by my friends
and
> > some by myself. It is a simple fact: I went through a kind of war
and I
> > wear those scars as badges of honour. I admit it - I am happy that I
> > experienced all of it, grew as I emerged and am the person I am now.
> > There is no rank pulling.
> >
> > That's all neat.
>
> Well, I wouldn't have put it quite like that.
>
> >But it was some time ago, and now a new chapter has
> > emerged. And in many ways it seems quite similiar to what has been
> > described previously. That does make me sad a little. But it also
> > interesting to see it play out in a new way. It bothered me to hear
> > Curtis call Robin a troll, but it is also dumb to make a post as
another
> > person. It seems the only reason to do that was to elicit some
> > response he wasn't getting any other way.
>
> Let them both go at it. No problem, just don't complain about it if
you chose to put fingers to keyboard, that's all I'm sayin'.
> >
> > We have all been through our personal "wars" our suffering, our
growth
> > our battles. What was your greatest personal achievement?
> >
> > Is it too lame to say that I've made it through another day?
>
> Nope, not lame at all. Just think of all the little personal miracles
we accomplish within a 24 hour period. Just being able to swallow food,
suck in oxygen, walk down a flight of stairs.
>
> >Sort of
> > that "one day at a time" philosophy. I guess to answer your
question,
> > it would be being a parent, raising a family, running a small
business,
> > and trying to stay totally honest with myself, and staying on the
> > spiritual path, that seems to be laid out before me.
>
> Worth at least three medals. But your reward seems to be in the fact
that you seem like a ge

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>



My interaction with another poster is causing YOU discomfort.  Think about that.

The issue here is not how I choose my interactions with another poster.  It is 
about the reaction you are having to it.  And one of your blind spots is that 
you don't have to read any of it.  But you do.

Obviously there is a level of interest in the interaction for me, but it is not 
unlimited, and I enforce my own level of interest boundaries, despite being 
goaded to continue ad infinitum.  I continue till I have expressed what I 
wanted to express and then I stop.  There is no end with Robin until I end it 
and that cycle has repeated itself here many times.

So your advice IS a judgement about the value of the interactions for me, you 
think I should stop or if I continue, I shouldn't complain about how Robin is 
acting in the discussion.  I have never complained about the choices I have 
made to interact with him.  But somehow the way I am interacting with him 
bothers you in a way that the way he is interacting with me does not.

Think about why this would be important to YOU.

You are working out your own stuff that is getting triggered from my 
interaction with Robin.  MY interaction with Robin is not the issue you should 
be focusing on if you spent three and a half years daily with this guy.

I'm fine.

Are you fine Ann?




> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your blind is showing again Ann. Glaringly so. I don't know how that
> > > > could be possible, but it is.
> > >
> > > What is a "blind"? spot  (my bad)
> > >
> > > > Your pulling rank here is pretty nonsensical.
> > >
> > > No, there is no pulling rank. I am simply stating that if Curtis does
> > not enjoy what Robin writes, or the position he feels he is being put in
> > he should just stop engaging. Even his good buddy Barry has told him
> > that time and time again.
> > 
> > 
> > I think you  might be missing the spirit of the exchanges here.  The
> > purpose is that hopefully we communicate in such a way that maybe we
> > have little breakthroughs.  That maybe we further our understanding
> > about things.  And I think that can be a pretty persistent hope,  so one
> > continues to post in that spirit even when it doesn't seem to be
> > happening.  Does that make sense to you, or are you one for throwing in
> > the towel at the first sign of resistance.  I don't believe for a second
> > for that to be the case.
> 
> I am only advocating Curtis stop responding to Robin, not because I think he 
> should, but because he keeps saying that he doesn't want to get pulled into 
> Robin's game, his repetitiousness, his mind games, his word floods, his 
> rants. He has said time and time again that he has no interest in pursuing 
> this never-ending revolving door of what Curtis feels is a no-win game of 
> semantics. And it goes on. You've read what he has said time and time again. 
> I think it might be great if the two of them kept talking but Curtis 
> evidently doesn't want to so all I am saying is he should shit or get off the 
> pot (to put it rather crudely). I am making no value judgements here about 
> the quality of the discourse or even the value of it. It is just that Curtis 
> keeps coming back for more all the while lamenting his "predicament". I am 
> just tired of hearing him whinge, that's all. Either he should get on with it 
> or move along to the next subject.
> > 
> > I find Curtis to be extremely patient.  And for whatever reason I find
> > him to be the reasonable one in these discussions.  I perfectly
> > understand if you don't, but I reserve the right to comment if I feel
> > that you, or anyone else is a little off base.  And certainly you do
> > that with me.  So, let's live and let live.
> 
> Absolutely. I have not commented on whether I believe Curtis to be patient or 
> not patient, reasonable or not reasonable, deluded or not deluded. In fact, 
> the only thing I was saying was what I outlined above, I don't need to say it 
> again and I won't.
> > 
> > 
> > > Life is "nonsensical", all the time. Can you make heads or tails of
> > it? I can't. And anyway, I have lots of scars to show as a result of my
> > time around Robin. Some were inflicted by him, some by my friends and
> > some by myself. It is a simple fact: I went through a kind of war and I
> > wear those scars as badges of honour. I admit it - I am happy that I
> > experienced all of it, grew as I emerged and am the person I am now.
> > There is no rank pulling.
> > 
> > That's all neat. 
> 
> Well, I wouldn't have put it quite like that.
> 
>  >But it was some time ago, and now a new chapter has
> > emerged.  And in many ways it seems quite similiar to what has been
> > described previously.  That 

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[seventhray27]

Thank you.  I do feel its important to answer a post, and not act as if
you don''t see it.  Judy does this as well, as do you.  I notice that
many others do not.  They have their own reasons of course, but you are
right, I will go into the lions lair knowing that it may be a rough go.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> See Steve, this is why I appreciate you. And I will tell you something
that might make you blush because, actually, I believe you are a
healthy, gently, reasonable person PLUS I think you are one of the more
courageous posters here. Why? Because you NEVER hesitate to answer a
post, to go into the lion's lair or what may not turn out to be a
dangerous place but still COULD be. You will take a chance and you will
respond. Whether people agree with you or think you are a blundering
fool is not the point. The point is I believe you to have integrity and
strength that is born of a gentle spirit. If I have told you once I have
told you ten times: you are a good man. And never forget it.
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your blind is showing again Ann. Glaringly so. I don't know how
that
> > > > could be possible, but it is.
> > >
> > > What is a "blind"? spot (my bad)
> > >
> > > > Your pulling rank here is pretty nonsensical.
> > >
> > > No, there is no pulling rank. I am simply stating that if Curtis
does
> > not enjoy what Robin writes, or the position he feels he is being
put in
> > he should just stop engaging. Even his good buddy Barry has told him
> > that time and time again.
> >
> >
> > I think you might be missing the spirit of the exchanges here. The
> > purpose is that hopefully we communicate in such a way that maybe we
> > have little breakthroughs. That maybe we further our understanding
> > about things. And I think that can be a pretty persistent hope, so
one
> > continues to post in that spirit even when it doesn't seem to be
> > happening. Does that make sense to you, or are you one for throwing
in
> > the towel at the first sign of resistance. I don't believe for a
second
> > for that to be the case.
> >
> > I find Curtis to be extremely patient. And for whatever reason I
find
> > him to be the reasonable one in these discussions. I perfectly
> > understand if you don't, but I reserve the right to comment if I
feel
> > that you, or anyone else is a little off base. And certainly you do
> > that with me. So, let's live and let live.
> >
> >
> > > Life is "nonsensical", all the time. Can you make heads or tails
of
> > it? I can't. And anyway, I have lots of scars to show as a result of
my
> > time around Robin. Some were inflicted by him, some by my friends
and
> > some by myself. It is a simple fact: I went through a kind of war
and I
> > wear those scars as badges of honour. I admit it - I am happy that I
> > experienced all of it, grew as I emerged and am the person I am now.
> > There is no rank pulling.
> >
> > That's all neat. But it was some time ago, and now a new chapter has
> > emerged. And in many ways it seems quite similiar to what has been
> > described previously. That does make me sad a little. But it also
> > interesting to see it play out in a new way. It bothered me to hear
> > Curtis call Robin a troll, but it is also dumb to make a post as
another
> > person. It seems the only reason to do that was to elicit some
> > response he wasn't getting any other way.
> >
> > We have all been through our personal "wars" our suffering, our
growth
> > our battles. What was your greatest personal achievement?
> >
> > Is it too lame to say that I've made it through another day? Sort of
> > that "one day at a time" philosophy. I guess to answer your
question,
> > it would be being a parent, raising a family, running a small
business,
> > and trying to stay totally honest with myself, and staying on the
> > spiritual path, that seems to be laid out before me.
> >
> > Does this engender any kind of pride or satisfaction in your idea,
you
> > perception of yourself? I certainly hope you can say it does. Life
can
> > exact a heavy toll, survivors have earned the right to a certain
level
> > of self satisfaction at simply remaining upright and coherent.
> >
> >
> > Yes, I agree
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" 
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > > > curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant
> > choice
> > > > of words to sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's
> > assumption
> > > > that you are not aligned with "reality" and his writing is going
to
> > jolt
> > > > you into an ability to face life in a Robin approved more real
way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> You did not make Ann an example of Robin's behavior - God this is hilarious 
> !!!
> 
> "You are hilarious in the seriousness with which you want to wound anyone who 
> decides to carry the truth forward in the teeth of your foul and perverse 
> opposition."
> 
> If I were you I would call this an incoherent tirade.
> 
> 
> On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:23 AM, "curtisdeltablues"  wrote:
> 
> > You really needed that many words to express that?
> > 
> > Your postings here are not an interaction with other people. It is all 
> > going on inside your own head.
> > 
> > I am under orders from Ann to ignore you now, 

You are? No, you can and will do what you want but how come you keep doing what 
you claim you want to stop doing? Maybe you just can't help yourself or maybe 
you don't really know what you want. Either way carry on your jousting with 
Robin but just try and quit your bellyaching.

>but you apparently are free to rant away. Man you must have done a number on 
>her up at that mic.

Let's see, "a number on her" is not clear to me in what you mean. It could mean 
that I am still under some sort of Robin spell, even now. It could mean I was 
damaged beyond repair. It could mean you are really pissed and came up with 
what you thought would 'get' me. Other than that I am not sure what it meant. 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Curtis,
> > > 
> > > I am going to pay tribute to you.
> > > 
> > > Your guile is so immaculate, so indefatigable, that the only final answer 
> > > to you is:
> > > 
> > > DO IT, CURTIS. DO IT. WE ARE JUST GOING TO WATCH.
> > > 
> > > In some way I'd almost say you are as inspired as Christ.
> > > 
> > > Your dishonesty is becoming one of the Ten Wonders of the universe.
> > > 
> > > There is no intelligence, no power, no love, no reason existing anywhere 
> > > which could ever cause to issue from you a tremor of humility.
> > > 
> > > I feel triumphant here--in a rather quiet and unusual way--in doing 
> > > something anti-climactic (you are rejuvenated after yesterday, right?): 
> > > writing to you, Curtis, to tell you your murderously conscientious 
> > > determination to keep bullshitting on this forum (when it comes to 
> > > matters of interpersonal truthfulness) can finally only be met by a 
> > > simple: I will leave you alone.
> > > 
> > > Still, you will never answer those four posts from Saturday.
> > > 
> > > Your are hilarious in the seriousness with which you want to wound anyone 
> > > who decides to carry the truth forward in the teeth of your foul and 
> > > perverse opposition.
> > > 
> > > But there is a need for mercy here, because, it would seem, you are 
> > > acting the part you were cast to play.
> > > 
> > > In my senior Shakespeare course at university, we analyzed the characters 
> > > in his plays.
> > > 
> > > You are one character in a bigger play than Shakespeare ever imagined, 
> > > Curtis.
> > > 
> > > You show us who you are. And you make Iago seem like a child. And you 
> > > force analysis by how you behave. [It you were a character in a 
> > > Shakespeare play I would look forward to writing an essay about what you 
> > > reveal about who you are in your actions. In this case, the stage is this 
> > > forum.)
> > > 
> > > I respect your philosophy, Curtis; and your performance (at all times); 
> > > but I am more inspired to know you will never go out of character than I 
> > > am certain that God, as he once existed, has decided to leave what he 
> > > created.
> > > 
> > > Had I not known what I knew before I met you, Curtis, I would have become 
> > > religious from reading how you argue here on FFL.
> > > 
> > > You don't quite get the same sensation in your heart when you lie as 
> > > someone who does not lie, but nevertheless it is a sensation that goes to 
> > > the sublime.
> > > 
> > > You understand what I am saying here, Curtis: to oppose you is to draw 
> > > out the real person. Curtis. That person does not know even in his 
> > > imagination what it feels like to be someone who cannot help but let life 
> > > form them, alter them, make them, break them, exalt them.
> > > 
> > > You are seemingly self-made from the beginning, Curtis.
> > > 
> > > You have secured what seems to me to be an imperishable place in creation.
> > > 
> > > No one can see what you are doing, Curtis. Only you.
> > > 
> > > CURTIS'S ANSWER TO ROBIN'S RANT:
> > > 
> > > Curtis: Robin, no one is afraid of you anymore. You think you can lay 
> > > down your trip on others--but it ain't going to fly, Robin. We see 
> > > through your game. This torrent of abuse will not make true what is not 
> > > true. You can't have your way around here, Robin. I am not going to let 
> > > you get away with it. I have been honest and forthcoming from the 
> > > beginning with you, Robin; but you don't take criticism well--and I have 
> > > yet to see you 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bootleg UK TM teachers

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> Anyone know of a TM teacher in the Birmingham, UK area who is teaching
> independently, and thus inexpensively?
>

The DLF has a UK branch now, and there are scholarships/grants available 
through the DLF to bring the pricing down to more sane levels.

L

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ravi Chivukula]

Yes I agree - I think this is the only way idiots can make a difference, by
being courageous, outrageous, brazen bravado is the key. This is the only
way they can create the illusion that their views, support have an equal
weight on this forum and force a response from others. All idiots should
look up to Steve, being restrained, shy will surely lead them to doom.

I think MJ's entry into FFL with his brazen, moronic, Appalachian swagger
has definitely rubbed off on Steve, helped his confidence - he's got that
extra zing after dealing with an even bigger idiot than him.


On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Ann  wrote:

> **
>
>
> See Steve, this is why I appreciate you. And I will tell you something
> that might make you blush because, actually, I believe you are a healthy,
> gently, reasonable person PLUS I think you are one of the more courageous
> posters here. Why? Because you NEVER hesitate to answer a post, to go into
> the lion's lair or what may not turn out to be a dangerous place but still
> COULD be. You will take a chance and you will respond. Whether people agree
> with you or think you are a blundering fool is not the point. The point is
> I believe you to have integrity and strength that is born of a gentle
> spirit. If I have told you once I have told you ten times: you are a good
> man. And never forget it.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your blind is showing again Ann. Glaringly so. I don't know how that
> > > > could be possible, but it is.
> > >
> > > What is a "blind"? spot (my bad)
> > >
> > > > Your pulling rank here is pretty nonsensical.
> > >
> > > No, there is no pulling rank. I am simply stating that if Curtis does
> > not enjoy what Robin writes, or the position he feels he is being put in
> > he should just stop engaging. Even his good buddy Barry has told him
> > that time and time again.
> >
> >
> > I think you might be missing the spirit of the exchanges here. The
> > purpose is that hopefully we communicate in such a way that maybe we
> > have little breakthroughs. That maybe we further our understanding
> > about things. And I think that can be a pretty persistent hope, so one
> > continues to post in that spirit even when it doesn't seem to be
> > happening. Does that make sense to you, or are you one for throwing in
> > the towel at the first sign of resistance. I don't believe for a second
> > for that to be the case.
> >
> > I find Curtis to be extremely patient. And for whatever reason I find
> > him to be the reasonable one in these discussions. I perfectly
> > understand if you don't, but I reserve the right to comment if I feel
> > that you, or anyone else is a little off base. And certainly you do
> > that with me. So, let's live and let live.
> >
> >
> > > Life is "nonsensical", all the time. Can you make heads or tails of
> > it? I can't. And anyway, I have lots of scars to show as a result of my
> > time around Robin. Some were inflicted by him, some by my friends and
> > some by myself. It is a simple fact: I went through a kind of war and I
> > wear those scars as badges of honour. I admit it - I am happy that I
> > experienced all of it, grew as I emerged and am the person I am now.
> > There is no rank pulling.
> >
> > That's all neat. But it was some time ago, and now a new chapter has
> > emerged. And in many ways it seems quite similiar to what has been
> > described previously. That does make me sad a little. But it also
> > interesting to see it play out in a new way. It bothered me to hear
> > Curtis call Robin a troll, but it is also dumb to make a post as another
> > person. It seems the only reason to do that was to elicit some
> > response he wasn't getting any other way.
> >
> > We have all been through our personal "wars" our suffering, our growth
> > our battles. What was your greatest personal achievement?
> >
> > Is it too lame to say that I've made it through another day? Sort of
> > that "one day at a time" philosophy. I guess to answer your question,
> > it would be being a parent, raising a family, running a small business,
> > and trying to stay totally honest with myself, and staying on the
> > spiritual path, that seems to be laid out before me.
> >
> > Does this engender any kind of pride or satisfaction in your idea, you
> > perception of yourself? I certainly hope you can say it does. Life can
> > exact a heavy toll, survivors have earned the right to a certain level
> > of self satisfaction at simply remaining upright and coherent.
> >
> >
> > Yes, I agree
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > > > curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Back when this first came up I supported

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Your blind is showing again Ann. Glaringly so. I don't know how that
> > > could be possible, but it is.
> >
> > What is a "blind"? spot  (my bad)
> >
> > > Your pulling rank here is pretty nonsensical.
> >
> > No, there is no pulling rank. I am simply stating that if Curtis does
> not enjoy what Robin writes, or the position he feels he is being put in
> he should just stop engaging. Even his good buddy Barry has told him
> that time and time again.
> 
> 
> I think you  might be missing the spirit of the exchanges here.  The
> purpose is that hopefully we communicate in such a way that maybe we
> have little breakthroughs.  That maybe we further our understanding
> about things.  And I think that can be a pretty persistent hope,  so one
> continues to post in that spirit even when it doesn't seem to be
> happening.  Does that make sense to you, or are you one for throwing in
> the towel at the first sign of resistance.  I don't believe for a second
> for that to be the case.

I am only advocating Curtis stop responding to Robin, not because I think he 
should, but because he keeps saying that he doesn't want to get pulled into 
Robin's game, his repetitiousness, his mind games, his word floods, his rants. 
He has said time and time again that he has no interest in pursuing this 
never-ending revolving door of what Curtis feels is a no-win game of semantics. 
And it goes on. You've read what he has said time and time again. I think it 
might be great if the two of them kept talking but Curtis evidently doesn't 
want to so all I am saying is he should shit or get off the pot (to put it 
rather crudely). I am making no value judgements here about the quality of the 
discourse or even the value of it. It is just that Curtis keeps coming back for 
more all the while lamenting his "predicament". I am just tired of hearing him 
whinge, that's all. Either he should get on with it or move along to the next 
subject.
> 
> I find Curtis to be extremely patient.  And for whatever reason I find
> him to be the reasonable one in these discussions.  I perfectly
> understand if you don't, but I reserve the right to comment if I feel
> that you, or anyone else is a little off base.  And certainly you do
> that with me.  So, let's live and let live.

Absolutely. I have not commented on whether I believe Curtis to be patient or 
not patient, reasonable or not reasonable, deluded or not deluded. In fact, the 
only thing I was saying was what I outlined above, I don't need to say it again 
and I won't.
> 
> 
> > Life is "nonsensical", all the time. Can you make heads or tails of
> it? I can't. And anyway, I have lots of scars to show as a result of my
> time around Robin. Some were inflicted by him, some by my friends and
> some by myself. It is a simple fact: I went through a kind of war and I
> wear those scars as badges of honour. I admit it - I am happy that I
> experienced all of it, grew as I emerged and am the person I am now.
> There is no rank pulling.
> 
> That's all neat. 

Well, I wouldn't have put it quite like that.

 >But it was some time ago, and now a new chapter has
> emerged.  And in many ways it seems quite similiar to what has been
> described previously.  That does make me sad a little. But it also
> interesting to see it play out in a new way. It bothered me to hear
> Curtis call Robin a troll, but it is also dumb to make a post as another
> person.  It seems the only reason to do that was  to elicit some
> response he wasn't getting any other way.

Let them both go at it. No problem, just don't complain about it if you chose 
to put fingers to keyboard, that's all I'm sayin'.
> 
>   We have all been through our personal "wars" our suffering, our growth
> our battles. What was your greatest personal achievement?
> 
> Is it too lame to say that I've made it through another day?

Nope, not lame at all. Just think of all the little personal miracles we 
accomplish within a 24 hour period. Just being able to swallow food, suck in 
oxygen, walk down a flight of stairs.

  >Sort of
> that "one day at a time" philosophy.  I guess to answer your question,
> it would be being a parent, raising a family, running a small business,
> and trying to stay totally honest with myself, and staying on the
> spiritual path, that seems to be laid out before me.

Worth at least three medals. But your reward seems to be in the fact that you 
seem like a genuine and happy man. This does not happen arbitrarily. You have 
evidently been doing a few things right.

> 
> Does this engender any kind of pride or satisfaction in your idea, you
> perception of yourself? I certainly hope you can say it does. Life can
> exact a heavy toll, survivors have earned the right to a certain level
> of self satisfaction 

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> See Steve, this is why I appreciate you. And I will tell you something that 
> might make you blush because, actually, I believe you are a healthy, gently, 
> reasonable person PLUS I think you are one of the more courageous posters 
> here. Why? Because you NEVER hesitate to answer a post, to go into the lion's 
> lair or what may not turn out to be a dangerous place but still COULD be. You 
> will take a chance and you will respond. Whether people agree with you or 
> think you are a blundering fool is not the point. The point is I believe you 
> to have integrity and strength that is born of a gentle spirit. If I have 
> told you once I have told you ten times: you are a good man. And never forget 
> it.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your blind is showing again Ann. Glaringly so. I don't know how that
> > > > could be possible, but it is.
> > >
> > > What is a "blind"? spot  (my bad)
> > >
> > > > Your pulling rank here is pretty nonsensical.
> > >
> > > No, there is no pulling rank. I am simply stating that if Curtis does
> > not enjoy what Robin writes, or the position he feels he is being put in
> > he should just stop engaging. Even his good buddy Barry has told him
> > that time and time again.
> > 
> > 
> > I think you  might be missing the spirit of the exchanges here.  The
> > purpose is that hopefully we communicate in such a way that maybe we
> > have little breakthroughs.  That maybe we further our understanding
> > about things.  And I think that can be a pretty persistent hope,  so one
> > continues to post in that spirit even when it doesn't seem to be
> > happening.  Does that make sense to you, or are you one for throwing in
> > the towel at the first sign of resistance.  I don't believe for a second
> > for that to be the case.
> > 
> > I find Curtis to be extremely patient.  And for whatever reason I find
> > him to be the reasonable one in these discussions.  I perfectly
> > understand if you don't, but I reserve the right to comment if I feel
> > that you, or anyone else is a little off base.  And certainly you do
> > that with me.  So, let's live and let live.
> > 
> > 
> > > Life is "nonsensical", all the time. Can you make heads or tails of
> > it? I can't. And anyway, I have lots of scars to show as a result of my
> > time around Robin. Some were inflicted by him, some by my friends and
> > some by myself. It is a simple fact: I went through a kind of war and I
> > wear those scars as badges of honour. I admit it - I am happy that I
> > experienced all of it, grew as I emerged and am the person I am now.
> > There is no rank pulling.
> > 
> > That's all neat.  But it was some time ago, and now a new chapter has
> > emerged.  And in many ways it seems quite similiar to what has been
> > described previously.  That does make me sad a little. But it also
> > interesting to see it play out in a new way. It bothered me to hear
> > Curtis call Robin a troll, but it is also dumb to make a post as another
> > person.  It seems the only reason to do that was  to elicit some
> > response he wasn't getting any other way.
> > 
> >   We have all been through our personal "wars" our suffering, our growth
> > our battles. What was your greatest personal achievement?
> > 
> > Is it too lame to say that I've made it through another day?  Sort of
> > that "one day at a time" philosophy.  I guess to answer your question,
> > it would be being a parent, raising a family, running a small business,
> > and trying to stay totally honest with myself, and staying on the
> > spiritual path, that seems to be laid out before me.
> > 
> > Does this engender any kind of pride or satisfaction in your idea, you
> > perception of yourself? I certainly hope you can say it does. Life can
> > exact a heavy toll, survivors have earned the right to a certain level
> > of self satisfaction at simply remaining upright and coherent.
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, I agree
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > > > curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant
> > choice
> > > > of words to sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's
> > assumption
> > > > that you are not aligned with "reality" and his writing is going to
> > jolt
> > > > you into an ability to face life in a Robin approved more real way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how
> > invasive
> > > > this unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end. Combined
> > with
> > > > the word flooding it is quite unpleasant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Neither of you

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ann]

See Steve, this is why I appreciate you. And I will tell you something that 
might make you blush because, actually, I believe you are a healthy, gently, 
reasonable person PLUS I think you are one of the more courageous posters here. 
Why? Because you NEVER hesitate to answer a post, to go into the lion's lair or 
what may not turn out to be a dangerous place but still COULD be. You will take 
a chance and you will respond. Whether people agree with you or think you are a 
blundering fool is not the point. The point is I believe you to have integrity 
and strength that is born of a gentle spirit. If I have told you once I have 
told you ten times: you are a good man. And never forget it.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Your blind is showing again Ann. Glaringly so. I don't know how that
> > > could be possible, but it is.
> >
> > What is a "blind"? spot  (my bad)
> >
> > > Your pulling rank here is pretty nonsensical.
> >
> > No, there is no pulling rank. I am simply stating that if Curtis does
> not enjoy what Robin writes, or the position he feels he is being put in
> he should just stop engaging. Even his good buddy Barry has told him
> that time and time again.
> 
> 
> I think you  might be missing the spirit of the exchanges here.  The
> purpose is that hopefully we communicate in such a way that maybe we
> have little breakthroughs.  That maybe we further our understanding
> about things.  And I think that can be a pretty persistent hope,  so one
> continues to post in that spirit even when it doesn't seem to be
> happening.  Does that make sense to you, or are you one for throwing in
> the towel at the first sign of resistance.  I don't believe for a second
> for that to be the case.
> 
> I find Curtis to be extremely patient.  And for whatever reason I find
> him to be the reasonable one in these discussions.  I perfectly
> understand if you don't, but I reserve the right to comment if I feel
> that you, or anyone else is a little off base.  And certainly you do
> that with me.  So, let's live and let live.
> 
> 
> > Life is "nonsensical", all the time. Can you make heads or tails of
> it? I can't. And anyway, I have lots of scars to show as a result of my
> time around Robin. Some were inflicted by him, some by my friends and
> some by myself. It is a simple fact: I went through a kind of war and I
> wear those scars as badges of honour. I admit it - I am happy that I
> experienced all of it, grew as I emerged and am the person I am now.
> There is no rank pulling.
> 
> That's all neat.  But it was some time ago, and now a new chapter has
> emerged.  And in many ways it seems quite similiar to what has been
> described previously.  That does make me sad a little. But it also
> interesting to see it play out in a new way. It bothered me to hear
> Curtis call Robin a troll, but it is also dumb to make a post as another
> person.  It seems the only reason to do that was  to elicit some
> response he wasn't getting any other way.
> 
>   We have all been through our personal "wars" our suffering, our growth
> our battles. What was your greatest personal achievement?
> 
> Is it too lame to say that I've made it through another day?  Sort of
> that "one day at a time" philosophy.  I guess to answer your question,
> it would be being a parent, raising a family, running a small business,
> and trying to stay totally honest with myself, and staying on the
> spiritual path, that seems to be laid out before me.
> 
> Does this engender any kind of pride or satisfaction in your idea, you
> perception of yourself? I certainly hope you can say it does. Life can
> exact a heavy toll, survivors have earned the right to a certain level
> of self satisfaction at simply remaining upright and coherent.
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > > curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant
> choice
> > > of words to sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's
> assumption
> > > that you are not aligned with "reality" and his writing is going to
> jolt
> > > you into an ability to face life in a Robin approved more real way.
> > > > >
> > > > > I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how
> invasive
> > > this unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end. Combined
> with
> > > the word flooding it is quite unpleasant.
> > > >
> > > > Neither of you have anything on my experience with Robin, not even
> > > close, not even in the same ballpark. Three and a half years around
> him
> > > physically up to 10-15 hours a day just puts my exposure to his
> > > "mindfuckery", his "word flooding" so far beyond your abilit

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> > Your blind is showing again Ann. Glaringly so. I don't know how that
> > could be possible, but it is.
>
> What is a "blind"? spot  (my bad)
>
> > Your pulling rank here is pretty nonsensical.
>
> No, there is no pulling rank. I am simply stating that if Curtis does
not enjoy what Robin writes, or the position he feels he is being put in
he should just stop engaging. Even his good buddy Barry has told him
that time and time again.


I think you  might be missing the spirit of the exchanges here.  The
purpose is that hopefully we communicate in such a way that maybe we
have little breakthroughs.  That maybe we further our understanding
about things.  And I think that can be a pretty persistent hope,  so one
continues to post in that spirit even when it doesn't seem to be
happening.  Does that make sense to you, or are you one for throwing in
the towel at the first sign of resistance.  I don't believe for a second
for that to be the case.

I find Curtis to be extremely patient.  And for whatever reason I find
him to be the reasonable one in these discussions.  I perfectly
understand if you don't, but I reserve the right to comment if I feel
that you, or anyone else is a little off base.  And certainly you do
that with me.  So, let's live and let live.


> Life is "nonsensical", all the time. Can you make heads or tails of
it? I can't. And anyway, I have lots of scars to show as a result of my
time around Robin. Some were inflicted by him, some by my friends and
some by myself. It is a simple fact: I went through a kind of war and I
wear those scars as badges of honour. I admit it - I am happy that I
experienced all of it, grew as I emerged and am the person I am now.
There is no rank pulling.

That's all neat.  But it was some time ago, and now a new chapter has
emerged.  And in many ways it seems quite similiar to what has been
described previously.  That does make me sad a little. But it also
interesting to see it play out in a new way. It bothered me to hear
Curtis call Robin a troll, but it is also dumb to make a post as another
person.  It seems the only reason to do that was  to elicit some
response he wasn't getting any other way.

  We have all been through our personal "wars" our suffering, our growth
our battles. What was your greatest personal achievement?

Is it too lame to say that I've made it through another day?  Sort of
that "one day at a time" philosophy.  I guess to answer your question,
it would be being a parent, raising a family, running a small business,
and trying to stay totally honest with myself, and staying on the
spiritual path, that seems to be laid out before me.

Does this engender any kind of pride or satisfaction in your idea, you
perception of yourself? I certainly hope you can say it does. Life can
exact a heavy toll, survivors have earned the right to a certain level
of self satisfaction at simply remaining upright and coherent.


Yes, I agree
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant
choice
> > of words to sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's
assumption
> > that you are not aligned with "reality" and his writing is going to
jolt
> > you into an ability to face life in a Robin approved more real way.
> > > >
> > > > I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how
invasive
> > this unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end. Combined
with
> > the word flooding it is quite unpleasant.
> > >
> > > Neither of you have anything on my experience with Robin, not even
> > close, not even in the same ballpark. Three and a half years around
him
> > physically up to 10-15 hours a day just puts my exposure to his
> > "mindfuckery", his "word flooding" so far beyond your ability to
even
> > conceive of such a thing that it makes me smile, just a little. And
boy,
> > you think he can mess with you now, 30 years ago you would have
lasted
> > about an hour at the mic. And even during all that time I wouldn't
have
> > characterized it as 'psychological rape". I could and would and did
call
> > it lots of other things but never quite that. Still, you have the
option
> > to stop reading, stop responding but you don't. I noticed recently
that
> > when you have been absent for a while and Robin intermittently shows
up
> > so do you. So somewhere, somehow, for some reason, you keep
gravitating
> > toward the opportunity to interact with him. Now either stop whining
and
> > complaining or ignore him and all things 'him' totally.
> > > >
> > > > In my view it would be Robin who would owe the apology for
acting in
> > a way that would make someone think this term was the best way to
> > describe it.
> > > >
> > > > And instead

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> Your blind is showing again Ann.  Glaringly so.  I don't know how that
> could be possible, but it is.

What is a "blind"?

> Your pulling rank here is pretty nonsensical.

No, there is no pulling rank. I am simply stating that if Curtis does not enjoy 
what Robin writes, or the position he feels he is being put in he should just 
stop engaging. Even his good buddy Barry has told him that time and time again. 

Life is "nonsensical", all the time. Can you make heads or tails of it? I 
can't. And anyway, I have lots of scars to show as a result of my time around 
Robin. Some were inflicted by him, some by my friends and some by myself. It is 
a simple fact: I went through a kind of war and I wear those scars as badges of 
honour. I admit it - I am happy that I experienced all of it, grew as I emerged 
and am the person I am now. There is no rank pulling. We have all been through 
our personal "wars" our suffering, our growth our battles. What was your 
greatest personal achievement? Does this engender any kind of pride or 
satisfaction in your idea, you perception of yourself? I certainly hope you can 
say it does. Life can exact a heavy toll, survivors have earned the right to a 
certain level of self satisfaction at simply remaining upright and coherent.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant choice
> of words to sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's assumption
> that you are not aligned with "reality" and his writing is going to jolt
> you into an ability to face life in a Robin approved more real way.
> > >
> > > I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how invasive
> this unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end.  Combined with
> the word flooding it is quite unpleasant.
> >
> > Neither of you have anything on my experience with Robin, not even
> close, not even in the same ballpark. Three and a half years around him
> physically up to 10-15 hours a day just puts my exposure to his
> "mindfuckery", his "word flooding" so far beyond your ability to even
> conceive of such a thing that it makes me smile, just a little. And boy,
> you think he can mess with you now, 30 years ago you would have lasted
> about an hour at the mic. And even during all that time I wouldn't have
> characterized it as 'psychological rape". I could and would and did call
> it lots of other things but never quite that. Still, you have the option
> to stop reading, stop responding but you don't. I noticed recently that
> when you have been absent for a while and Robin intermittently shows up
> so do you. So somewhere, somehow, for some reason, you keep gravitating
> toward the opportunity to interact with him. Now either stop whining and
> complaining or ignore him and all things 'him' totally.
> > >
> > > In my view it would be Robin who would owe the apology for acting in
> a way that would make someone think this term was the best way to
> describe it.
> > >
> > > And instead of taking the feedback of how far over the boundaries
> line he had crossed...
> > >
> > > she got and still gets the predictable pile on for feeling this way.
> > >
> > > Note to Share:  You will never be able to appease this unfriendly
> agenda no matter what you say.  It is s double bind where the
> "sincerity" of even an unnecessary apology will be judged by them.
> > >
> > > And again you will lose because that is how the formula works.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or
> > > > "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as
> > > > you have not apologized for calling Robin a
> > > > "psychological rapist."
> > > >
> > > > In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step"
> > > > because you never took the first step. I'm virtually
> > > > positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin
> > > > as soon as you were to take the first step: he would
> > > > forgive you if you apologized sincerely.
> > > >
> > > > That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your
> > > > character.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making
> amends part of an apology.  Even in our recent exchange I asked
> Robin how I could make amends for misunderstanding him about his turq
> post and Curtis exchange.  For me it is the making amends that is
> the sine qua non of an apology and this is where the cost comes in. 
> And of course the cost or amends is meant to address the actual
> consequences.  Such as a restitution of money in the case of a
> compulsive gambler who lost the family savings fo

[FairfieldLife] Sri Guru Gita in Ganeshpuri

[Yifu]

Ganeshpuri - location of Ashrams of Muktananda and Nityananda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJQvVbpU3Eg

[FairfieldLife] Jaya Jaya Arthi Nityananda

[Yifu]

(Nityananda, Guru of Muktananda):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6V4c6gLY7I

[FairfieldLife] Peter Lorre with cats

[Yifu]

1944
http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/8/77996.jpg

[FairfieldLife] Re: A flood of "word floods"

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> Once again we find that the transgression is the use of
> the descriptive term, rather than the behavior that gave
> rise to its use.

Actually I don't think either is a "transgression."
I didn't make the post because I thought the phrase
"word flood" was a transgression. How absurd.

You're becoming more pompous by the day, and you
seem to have completely lost the ability to laugh at
yourself.

I think it's hilarious when you become so fond of
one of your psychobabbly terms that you use it over
and over, each time supremely confident that you're
delivering a tough, stinging indictment, even after
you've used it so often that it's long past its
sell-by date and has lost whatever impact it had to
start with (not much, IMHO).

> Although I certainly can understand your being so 
> personally touchy about the phrase,

(chuckle)

 but you have never
> tried to engage Robin to see if there could ever be
> enough words to appease the flood and make it stop.

Once again we find that the transgression is the flood of
words, rather than the behavior that gave rise to it.

One of the reasons I've never had to deal with a word
flood from Robin is that I've never been anything but
completely straightforward with him.

The flood of words from Robin never bothered you when 
they were admiring.





 
> I have. 
> 
> Take it away Charley:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72oQy_M7h4Q
> 
> 
> Well, backwater done rose all around Sumner now,
> drove me down the line
> Backwater done rose at Sumner,
> drove poor Charley down the line
> Lord, I'll tell the world the water,
> done crept through this town
> Lord, the whole round country,
> Lord, river has overflowed
> Lord, the whole round country,
> man, is overflowed
> You know I can't stay here,
> I'll go where it's high, boy
> I would goto the hilly country,
> but, they got me barred
> Now, look-a here now at Leland
> river was risin' high
> Look-a here boys around Leland tell me,
> river was raisin' high
> Boy, it's risin' over there, yeah
> I'm gonna move to Greenville
> fore I leave, goodbye
> Look-a here the water now, Lordy,
> Levee broke, rose most everywhere
> The water at Greenville and Leland,
> Lord, it done rose everywhere
> Boy, you can't never stay here
> I would go down to Rosedale
> but, they tell me there's water there
> Now, the water now, mama,
> done took Charley's town
> Well, they tell me the water,
> done took Charley's town
> Boy, I'm goin' to Vicksburg
> Well, I'm goin' to Vicksburg,
> for that high of mine
> I am goin' up that water,
> where lands don't never flow
> Well, I'm goin' over the hill where,
> water, oh don't ever flow
> Boy, hit Sharkey County and everything was down in Stovall
> But, that whole county was leavin',
> over that Tallahatchie shore Boy,
> went to Tallahatchie and got it over there
> Lord, the water done rushed all over,
> down old Jackson road
> Lord, the water done raised,
> over the Jackson road
> Boy, it starched my clothes
> I'm goin' back to the hilly country,
> won't be worried no more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Your word flood will continue long after I am gone.
> > 
> > Robin is obscuring very simple concepts in a word flood.
> > 
> > You lost me on your initial word flood.
> > 
> > So that is my opinion and I don't need to word flood you
> > about it.
> > 
> > I have a few people, mostly offline, who might have the
> > interest in navigating this combined word flood, but very
> > few here.
> > 
> > She doubles down again, piling on more insults in a rabid
> > word flood frenzy.
> > 
> > You believe only a word flood can answer a word flood, I
> > do not.
> > 
> > Getting word flooded by a person who refuses to ever edit
> > his writing to fit into a remotely normal person's ability
> > to interact here.
> > 
> > A tactic of wearing someone down with an unrealistically
> > long flood of words.
> > 
> > You are a bit of a word flooder but not even in the same
> > league as Robin.
> > 
> > Sorry Robin, I'm gunna have to let your word flood posts
> > stand on their own without commentary.
> > 
> > Combined with the word flooding it is quite unpleasant.
> > 
> > Dude, enough with the word flood posts.
> > 
> > Robin is complaining that I am not responding to his 3
> > part word flood posts.
> > 
> > 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oYGv4D2Qr4
> > 
> > 
> > http://litemind.com/10-strategies-improve-vocabulary/
> > 
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:43 PM, laughinggull108  wrote:

> > > 
> > > Wrong. Krishna is the real kapati - But Rakshasaas are also kapati. 
> > > What's the difference dear LG Shishyaa?
> > 
> > God I fucked up, even Krishna fucks up LOL. Anyway, once again what's the 
> > difference Bhakta?
> >
> 
> Raviji, as one deals, He'll also...He reciprocates. That is Krsna.

Awesome, yes Krishna meets love with love and humility and deception with 
deception and arrogance.

Dear LG - You have been awarded the Best Bonafide Bhakta of the Kali Yuga by 
the Kaliyuga Kapati Krishna - Yaay !!! Love you LG XOXO.

[FairfieldLife] Still got the Yahoo mail delay blues

[Alex Stanley]

Posts via email are still having delay issues in the 2-4 hour range, so I'll 
manually run the post count script tomorrow morning.

[FairfieldLife] Re: NCAA Men's Basketball Championship Tonight!

[John]

Yes.  IMO, Louisville will win.  They're big and can shoot better than Michigan.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
>
> Anyone watching???
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bootleg UK TM teachers

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> Anyone know of a TM teacher in the Birmingham, UK area who is teaching
> independently, and thus inexpensively?

The same fellow who puts all the funds in his own pockets, prevents his 
students from taking advanced techniques and stops them from going to 
international courses ?

[FairfieldLife] US President Barack Obama throws weight behind yoga

[Dick Mays]

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-01/us/38189016_1_yoga-activity-ancient-indian-practiceUS President Barack Obama throws weight behind yogaChidanand Rajghatta, TNN Apr 1, 2013, 12.33AM IST(It is not the first time that…)WASHINGTON: The White House has wholeheartedly embraced Yoga as a worthy physical activity at a time some schools in America are railing against the ancient Indian practice, saying it promotes Hinduism.The White House announced last week that President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama will include a 'yoga garden' for children and their parents who attend the traditional Easter Egg Roll festivities on Monday. "Come enjoy a session of yoga from professional instructors," the White House exhorted thousands of workaday Americans parents and their kids from across the country who will troop into the Presidential lawns, reminding participants that the event's theme is 'Be Healthy, Be Active, Be You!'It is not the first time that Obama's residence has hosted a yoga garden for Easter, but this year's event is significant because of an ongoing lawsuit in California challenging the teaching of yoga in schools. In fact, the case came up for hearing in a San Diego courtroom on Thursday with a mirthful opening.In an indication of how deep-rooted mainstream yoga has become in the US, it turned out that the presiding judge himself is a yoga practitioner. "Does anybody have a problem with that?" San Diego Superior Court Judge John Meyer was reported asking at the start of the case.Dean Broyles, representing parents suing the Encinitas Union School District in a lawsuit that has gained international attention, said he was fine with Meyer presiding over the case if the judge can keep an open mind about the plaintiff's argument regarding spiritual connections to yoga, according to reports in the local media.At the heart of the case is the argument by some parents that yoga is inherently religious, a contention most Americans, including the judge, seem to disagree with. Judge Meyer is reported to be a practitioner of Bikram Yoga, likening it to simple stretching exercises. "If you think there's something spiritual about what I do, that's news to me," he was quoted as saying.The White House meanwhile is stretching every muscle and sinew to get Americans, including children, to get more concerned about the decline in the nation's overall well-being and its soaring healthcare bill. The drive is led by Michelle Obama, a health and fitness, and herself a yoga enthusiast.The yoga garden is conducted by Leah Cullis, a certified yoga teacher who the White House reached out to in 2009 as soon when the Obamas came to office. Cullis, whose husband, event producer John Liipfert, handled Obama's Presidential inauguration, selects yoga instructors from all over the US to put parents and children through basic yoga drills."The mission of the event is to share ways where families and children can use simple tools for an active lifestyle — tools that require no props and no money and which they can go home and do it themselves," Cullis told TOI, speaking of her association with the White House initiative.In fact, the White House has taken its yoga drive one step â€” or one stretch — further. It has now initiated a Presidential Active Lifestyle Award (PALA), a Obama White House Challenge designed to motivate Americans to make physical activity and healthy eating part of their everyday life. In embracing the practice, the White House also dismissed any specific religious connotation sought to be attached to yoga."Yoga has become a universal language of spiritual exercise in the United States, crossing many lines of religion and cultures," the White House said without any reference to the ongoing controversies and lawsuit. "Every day, millions of people practice yoga to improve their health and overall well-being. That's why we're encouraging everyone to take part in PALA, so show your support for yoga and answer the challenge."

[FairfieldLife] Swami Lakshmanjoo and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

[nablusoss1008]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4SdkYo2pTk

[FairfieldLife] Post Count Tue 09-Apr-13 00:15:02 UTC

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): 04/06/13 00:00:00
End Date (UTC): 04/13/13 00:00:00
284 messages as of (UTC) 04/08/13 21:16:18

43 authfriend 
24 seventhray27 
22 curtisdeltablues 
21 Robin Carlsen 
18 Share Long 
16 card 
16 Ann 
13 Buck 
11 Ravi Chivukula 
11 John 
10 turquoiseb 
 9 Richard J. Williams 
 9 Bhairitu 
 8 laughinggull108 
 8 feste37 
 7 Michael Jackson 
 4 merudanda 
 4 Yifu 
 4 Mike Dixon 
 4 Emily Reyn 
 3 Rick Archer 
 2 sparaig 
 2 salyavin808 
 2 nablusoss1008 
 2 emilymae.reyn 
 2 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
 2 Jason 
 2 Duveyoung 
 1 merlin 
 1 azgrey 
 1 PaliGap 
 1 Dick Mays 
 1 Alex Stanley 
Posters: 33
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Iron Lady' Prime Minister, Dead at 87

[Bhairitu]

Another fascist pig meets their destiny in hell.  She destroyed the 
British working class.

On 04/08/2013 03:09 PM, merudanda wrote:
> [http://inspiyr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/negative-self-talk-head-i\
> n-hands-statue.jpg]
>
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-dead-twitter-outr\
> age-1818555
>  rage-1818555>
>
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-dead-facebook-cam\
> paign-1818341
>  mpaign-1818341>
>   
> [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6_K6DQvVHB4/TNHf2xW-j8I/AXk/Q9VT2tuW3\
> FQ/s400/pelosi-witch.jpg]
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQtvBxsuSO4
> 
>[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A_OtTeVCcAEjsAi.jpg]
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Cher fans on Twitter were agitated apparently:
>> #nowthatchersdead
>>
>>
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-dead-worried-cher\
> -1818681
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote:
>>>
> http://abcnews.go.com/International/margaret-thatcher-britains-iron-lady\
> \
>>> -dead-87/story?id=13644011#.UWLN90oozDk
>>>
>  \
>>> y-dead-87/story?id=13644011#.UWLN90oozDk>
>>> "It is with great sadness that Mark and Carol Thatcher announced
> that
>>> their mother Baroness Thatcher died peacefully following a stroke
> this
>>> morning,"
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBEREJpOvNo
>>> 
>>>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Michael Jackson]

That was pretty funny Curtis - although I bet some here won't appreciate the 
humor.





 From: curtisdeltablues 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 11:43 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE
 

  
Is it disturbing that fragile world peace vibe you guys are cranking out in the 
cornfields?  As much as one kid taking a bong hit?  It makes me wonder if your 
good vibes are really gunna reach that 1950's looking kid dictator in North 
Korea if you don't have the dharana chops to focus on what works for you here 
and ignore the rest. 

I always thought peace started with the individual, but now I see that it takes 
a village to maintain a mood...I mean peace.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> Thanks Curtis,
> Good summary post. 
> I didn't have time to read all these posts last week.
> I appreciate the cut to the chase.
> Except for a pile on which may come, Is this argument about over?
> Best Regards,
> -Buck in Fairfield
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > snip
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of
> > > > > the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the
> > > > > least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality
> > > > > Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic
> > > > > to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read
> > > > > and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is
> > > > > that people would have to shower less if they just
> > > > > ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and
> > > > > pristine snow he is.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [Barry about Robin--from yesterday)
> > > > > 
> > > > > CURTIS:
> > > > > 
> > > > > In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that 
> > > > > I am referring only to his 
> > > > > "intensely opinionated posts"--not, for example, to the posts he just 
> > > > > wrote from Paris.
> > 
> > But you are wrong about them too.  It is YOUR lack of ability to see his 
> > internal processes in them.  If anything it comes through more simply in 
> > those.  He comes across much more complexly in his less focused posts. 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > But you knew this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my 
> > > > > analysis of him.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is his "freak of nature" persona [AWB], not his fluent and 
> > > > > engaging travelogues--or even movie reviews.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But you knew this.
> > 
> > Can't you just see that in some posts he is peevishly dismissing things 
> > that annoy him. You are reading too much into it because some of them are 
> > focused on you.  But even the infamous C posts were completely 
> > comprehensible in terms of his POV and thinking process.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a 
> > > > > comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are 
> > > > > specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my 
> > > > > analysis of him. They are not.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the 
> > > > > discerning FFL reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE THE PLACE OF A REAL 
> > > > > RESPONSE TO THOSE FOUR POSTS TO YOU OF YESTERDAY (where I did say 
> > > > > everything I could want to say) is an extraordinary thing. You have, 
> > > > > I must assume, answered my four posts by this post. This certainly is 
> > > > > WHAT YOU WANT THIS POST TO DO FOR YOU.
> > 
> > Don't you EVER get tired of attempting this kind of mindfuck Robin.  
> > Seriously, it is so lame.  What I want this post to do is to express ideas 
> > I am interested in expressing.
> > 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think it may very well work in the majority of those FFL readers 
> > > > > who come upon this; especially right after reading Barry's posts from 
> > > > > Paris of today.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Paris is not The Stupid Cunt category. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Stream of consciousness? That has nothing whatsoever to do with my 
> > > > > analysis, Curtis
> > 
> > 
> > It has to do with mine.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > "In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your 
> > > > > experience of yourself. That is what is killing your ability to 
> > > > > perceive others beyond your internal cartoon images of them. Carried 
> > > > > away by your internal experience, you fill the page with observations 
> > > > > that only apply to your internal world."
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is the most ludicrous and dishonest and absurd thing you have 
> > > > > ever said about me, Curtis.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Each word is a lie--and the entire meaning of this, it has no 
> > > > > application, for example, to my four posts I wrot

[FairfieldLife] Re: NCAA Men's Basketball Championship Tonight!

[azgrey]

Of course.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108  wrote:
>
> Anyone watching???
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: A flood of "word floods"

[curtisdeltablues]

Once again we find that the transgression is the use of the descriptive term, 
rather than the behavior that gave rise to its use.

Although I certainly can understand your being so personally touchy about the 
phrase, but you have never tried to engage Robin to see if there could ever be 
enough words to appease the flood and make it stop.

I have. 

Take it away Charley:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72oQy_M7h4Q


Well, backwater done rose all around Sumner now,
drove me down the line
Backwater done rose at Sumner,
drove poor Charley down the line
Lord, I'll tell the world the water,
done crept through this town
Lord, the whole round country,
Lord, river has overflowed
Lord, the whole round country,
man, is overflowed
You know I can't stay here,
I'll go where it's high, boy
I would goto the hilly country,
but, they got me barred
Now, look-a here now at Leland
river was risin' high
Look-a here boys around Leland tell me,
river was raisin' high
Boy, it's risin' over there, yeah
I'm gonna move to Greenville
fore I leave, goodbye
Look-a here the water now, Lordy,
Levee broke, rose most everywhere
The water at Greenville and Leland,
Lord, it done rose everywhere
Boy, you can't never stay here
I would go down to Rosedale
but, they tell me there's water there
Now, the water now, mama,
done took Charley's town
Well, they tell me the water,
done took Charley's town
Boy, I'm goin' to Vicksburg
Well, I'm goin' to Vicksburg,
for that high of mine
I am goin' up that water,
where lands don't never flow
Well, I'm goin' over the hill where,
water, oh don't ever flow
Boy, hit Sharkey County and everything was down in Stovall
But, that whole county was leavin',
over that Tallahatchie shore Boy,
went to Tallahatchie and got it over there
Lord, the water done rushed all over,
down old Jackson road
Lord, the water done raised,
over the Jackson road
Boy, it starched my clothes
I'm goin' back to the hilly country,
won't be worried no more







--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> 
> Your word flood will continue long after I am gone.
> 
> Robin is obscuring very simple concepts in a word flood.
> 
> You lost me on your initial word flood.
> 
> So that is my opinion and I don't need to word flood you
> about it.
> 
> I have a few people, mostly offline, who might have the
> interest in navigating this combined word flood, but very
> few here.
> 
> She doubles down again, piling on more insults in a rabid
> word flood frenzy.
> 
> You believe only a word flood can answer a word flood, I
> do not.
> 
> Getting word flooded by a person who refuses to ever edit
> his writing to fit into a remotely normal person's ability
> to interact here.
> 
> A tactic of wearing someone down with an unrealistically
> long flood of words.
> 
> You are a bit of a word flooder but not even in the same
> league as Robin.
> 
> Sorry Robin, I'm gunna have to let your word flood posts
> stand on their own without commentary.
> 
> Combined with the word flooding it is quite unpleasant.
> 
> Dude, enough with the word flood posts.
> 
> Robin is complaining that I am not responding to his 3
> part word flood posts.
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oYGv4D2Qr4
> 
> 
> http://litemind.com/10-strategies-improve-vocabulary/
> 
>

[FairfieldLife] A flood of "word floods"

[authfriend]

Your word flood will continue long after I am gone.

Robin is obscuring very simple concepts in a word flood.

You lost me on your initial word flood.

So that is my opinion and I don't need to word flood you
about it.

I have a few people, mostly offline, who might have the
interest in navigating this combined word flood, but very
few here.

She doubles down again, piling on more insults in a rabid
word flood frenzy.

You believe only a word flood can answer a word flood, I
do not.

Getting word flooded by a person who refuses to ever edit
his writing to fit into a remotely normal person's ability
to interact here.

A tactic of wearing someone down with an unrealistically
long flood of words.

You are a bit of a word flooder but not even in the same
league as Robin.

Sorry Robin, I'm gunna have to let your word flood posts
stand on their own without commentary.

Combined with the word flooding it is quite unpleasant.

Dude, enough with the word flood posts.

Robin is complaining that I am not responding to his 3
part word flood posts.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oYGv4D2Qr4


http://litemind.com/10-strategies-improve-vocabulary/

[FairfieldLife] NCAA Men's Basketball Championship Tonight!

[laughinggull108]

Anyone watching???

Re: [FairfieldLife] Wanna push yer luck??

[Bhairitu]

On 04/08/2013 03:07 PM, card wrote:
> How about buying some NOK?
>
> http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/nok/real-time#.UWM_apOpVPY
>
> Seeking Alpha:
>
> Seeking alphan kommentti sivuilta poimittua, BB vs. Nokia. Sanoisin että 
> oheinen kommentoija antoi täysilaidallisen BB porukalle, täystyrmäys, knock 
> down. Ei mitään lisättävää.
>
> It is remarkable to see so many BBRY shareholders bash Nokia, fighting the 
> idea of NOK being a much better turnaround play than BBRY. I studied both 
> stocks for some time now, but there are some strong advantages of NOK over 
> BBRY.
>
> 1. BB.. platform is decreasing as we speak. WP is growing. WP already is the 
> third mobile platform.
> http://bit.ly/XJyx5f
>
> WP has a richer ecosystem, with more apps as compared to BB. WP is the 
> easiest platform, BB the most difficult.
> http://tcrn.ch/XCn8Dh
>
> 2. WP8 has the same kernel as Windows 8, dominating the pc market, aiming at 
> the tablet market. Software programmed for W8 is also suitable for WP8, that 
> way being more attractive for app developpers.
>
> 3. Nokia is dominating the Windows Phone market with a market share of 78%.
> http://bit.ly/WVJopq
>
> 4. Nokia makes many high quality native WP apps, like HERE prime places, 
> Nokia City Lens, Nokia Transport, Nokia Music, etc. Nokia is the only 
> phonemaker allowed to tweak the WP OS.
>
> 5. Because of its mapping and location based services, which come with the 
> WP, Nokia gets paid fees for every WP device sold by their competitors.
>
> 6. Nokia offers high quality smartphones (Lumia's) at all price points, which 
> makes it less sensitive to the highly competitive high end market.
>
> 7. There are many reviews simply concluding that the half year old Nokia 
> Lumia 920 is a better smartphone than the freshly released Z10. There is 
> none, declaring the opposite. The Lumia 920 has a better camera, super 
> sensitive touch screen, motion pixel plus, better mapping, wireless charging, 
> better microphones and a more stable and more fluid OS than BB10.
> http://bit.ly/15AXY9u
> http://bit.ly/Z3NKhb
>
> The successor of the Lumia 920, EOS, is already rumoured to make an 
> appearance at the end of this summer.
>
> 8. Nokia offers also the Asha (feautere/ smartphone) family at sub $ 100 
> price points, giving Nokia the strongest foothold in emerging markets. The 
> Asha family still offers a better price to quality ratio as compared to its 
> direct competitor Samsung Rex series.
> http://bit.ly/17824cP
> http://bit.ly/YUUlrO
>
> 9. Nokia still has the biggest sales network of all phone manufacturers.
>
> 10. Nokia has the most patents (+ 20.000) of all companies in the mobile tech 
> sector. Nokia cashes in nearly 700 million yearly on IP royalty payments. 
> This amount is still increasing. Amongst others Apple and Blackberry are 
> paying Nokia for every phone they sell.
>
> 11. Nokia Siemens Networks, soon the second largest vendor of telecom 
> equipment is another division within the Nokia group, attributing for about 
> 47% of Nokia's sales.
>
> 12. Nokia owns HERE, the best mapping service in the world, available in 4 
> out of every 5 modern cars and used by many world class companies, like 
> Oracle, Amazon, Yandex, Nikon, Garmin, Microsoft, Yahoo, Groupon, etc.
>
> 13. Nokia keeps on to be leading in R&D, camera technology, location based 
> services, unique material application, a.o. graphene.
> http://bit.ly/1782b84
>
> 14. Nokia has more financial means and R&D power to develop new models and 
> software upgrades. In the time Blackberry developed the Z10 phone, Nokia 
> developed the whole Lumia WP7 series as well as the whole Lumia WP8 series.
>
> Muoks. onkin lisättävää, jotain tärkeää unohtui. BB:n verrattuna Nokialla on 
> vielä yksi merkittävä valttikortti yritysasiakkaista kilpailtaessa. Office 
> integraatio. MS:n valtava asiakaspohja jotka toimii windows ympäristössä.
>
> Viestiä on muokannut: deflaatiopeikko 8.4.2013 23:44

So why didn't Nokia build an open source platform like Android? Greed or 
a lame CEO or both?  Anyone could have done an Android like OS.  Maybe 
it was just karma?

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[seventhray27]

Judy, I've got to say, I love you.  I just do.  You tickle my funny bone
so when you launch into this retrieval mode.   I mean I can follow
Robin's posts for a minute or so, but I derive all the satisfaction I
can handle as soon as I see, "Back when" or something to that
effect.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@ wrote:
> >
> (snip)
> > I wrote two posts documenting in detail Share's amazing
> > progression from not suffering or feeling insulted to
> > believing she had been the victim of "psychological rape."
> > I'll dig them up if necessary.
>
> Here's one of them, from October 2 of last year:
>
> -
> Having read all the relevant posts, I am utterly baffled
> and appalled at Share's use of this term ["psychological
> rape"] to describe her interactions with Robin. I'd be
> very curious to know where she got it from. Did someone
> suggest it to her?
>
> This is such a serious charge, it's really important to
> review some of the background.
>
> In her post today, Share writes:
>
> "Just for the record, this is exactly why I got so upset
> initially with Robin about the Russian flash mob post.
> Being psychologically raped didn't feel good then just
> as it doesn't feel good now."
>
> Here is Share's initial comment to Robin about his
> reaction to her remarks about the flash mob video
> (September 4):
>
> "Yes I will excuse your presumption if you excuse my not going
> down this particular rabbit hole againSo no problemo. Sigh,
> btw, I notice I'm feeling grumpy this morning. Blaming it on
> the sugar I ate yesterday. Somehow I've become very sensitive
> to sugar. Anyway, Robin, apologies for taking it out on you."
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319178
>
> And here is what she wrote to Robin on September 9
> concerning this interaction:
>
> "As for what my feelings were, I didn't suffer or feel
> insulted. Nor did I think you were being hurtful or cruel.
> I simply did not want to pursue the theme of whether or not
> I was being the real me. Nor the theme of my alleged hyper
> positivity."
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319500
>
> So at the time that it happened, Share felt a little
> grumpy and apologized to Robin.
>
> Four days later, Share affirmed that she had not been
> insulted, did not suffer, did not think Robin was being
> hurtful or cruel. [This was the point at which Curtis
> jumped in.--JS 4/8/13]
>
> Today, four weeks later, it was "psychological rape."
>
> Something isn't right here. Somehow Share has become
> convinced that what at the time had caused no more
> than a little grumpiness on her part (which she
> attribted to eating sugar anyway) was a terrible act
> of emotional violation equivalent to rape.
>
> (She had completely misinterpreted Robin's remarks
> in any case, and he had practically stood on his head
> explaining himself in the kindest possible manner.)
>
> The charge was made in public about an FFL member. I
> think we need an explanation. What, or who, caused
> Share to change her mind so drastically?
>
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321696
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Shocking Bikram Sex Scandal Should Shock No One - The Daily Beast

[seventhray27]

Stay in your lane big boy.  You got enough going with the big M.  Don't
overextend yourself.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson 
wrote:
>
> This is no scandal - he has gone on record saying he has sex with his
students - he claimed that sometimes gurus have to cuz the students
threaten to kill themselves or make false allegations if the guru
doesn't accede to the students demands - that's what he said.
>
>
>
>
> 
>  From: Rick Archer rick@...
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 11:44 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Shocking Bikram Sex Scandal Should Shock No
One - The Daily Beast
>
>
> Â
>
http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/articles/2013/04/06/shocking-bikram-se\
x-scandal-should-shock-no-one.html
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" awoelflebater@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:
> > >
> > > Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant choice
of words to sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's assumption
that you are not aligned with "reality" and his writing is going to jolt
you into an ability to face life in a Robin approved more real way.
> > >
> > > I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how
invasive this unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end. 
Combined with the word flooding it is quite unpleasant.
> >
> > Neither of you have anything on my experience with Robin, not even
close, not even in the same ballpark. Three and a half years around him
physically up to 10-15 hours a day just puts my exposure to his
"mindfuckery", his "word flooding" so far beyond your ability to even
conceive of such a thing that it makes me smile, just a little. And boy,
you think he can mess with you now, 30 years ago you would have lasted
about an hour at the mic. And even during all that time I wouldn't have
characterized it as 'psychological rape". I could and would and did call
it lots of other things but never quite that. >
>
> And you are welcome to your opinion of how he acted in person as I am
to mine about how he shows up here.
>
>
> 
>
> That seems kind of funny charge sine Robin is complaining that I am
not responding to his 3 part word flood posts.
>
> < I noticed recently that when you have been absent for a while and
Robin intermittently shows up so do you. So somewhere, somehow, for some
reason, you keep gravitating toward the opportunity to interact with
him.>
>
> Yes we often choose to interact here. So your point is?
>
> < Now either stop whining and complaining or ignore him and all things
'him' totally.>
>
> Oh, characterizing my interaction with him as "whining and
complaining" is such an unfriendly judgement.  Does that apply only to
me?  Does it apply to Judy's part in the interaction?  Should everyone
here just ignore each other and let you have the board to yourself?
Sorry you find my opinions here inconvenient.  I suggest you should
perhaps take your own advice in regards to my interactions with other
posters here.  And stop your whining and complaining about how I choose
to post here.
Big (Ann) blind spot revealed here.


>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > In my view it would be Robin who would owe the apology for acting
in a way that would make someone think this term was the best way to
describe it.
> > >
> > > And instead of taking the feedback of how far over the boundaries
line he had crossed...
> > >
> > > she got and still gets the predictable pile on for feeling this
way.
> > >
> > > Note to Share:  You will never be able to appease this unfriendly
agenda no matter what you say.  It is s double bind where the
"sincerity" of even an unnecessary apology will be judged by them.
> > >
> > > And again you will lose because that is how the formula works.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or
> > > > "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as
> > > > you have not apologized for calling Robin a
> > > > "psychological rapist."
> > > >
> > > > In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step"
> > > > because you never took the first step. I'm virtually
> > > > positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin
> > > > as soon as you were to take the first step: he would
> > > > forgive you if you apologized sincerely.
> > > >
> > > > That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your
> > > > character.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making
amends part of an apology.  Even in our recent exchange I asked
Robin how I could make amends for misunderstanding him about his turq
post and Curtis exchange.  For me it is the making amends that is
the sine qua non of an apology and this is where the cost comes in. 
And of course the cost or amends is meant to address the actual
consequences.  Such as a restitution of money in the case of a
compulsive gambler who lost the family savings for example.Â
> > > > >
> > > > > But the first step is to offer
> > > > >  apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other
person.  Robin and I did not get to the second step last year. 
And it seems we're not getting to it again.  But I've made my offer
and stand by it.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing.Â
In those days many people went to confession every week.  Also I say
it just in case I've hurt someone's feelings.  The better I know FFL
people the more I'll dispense with that.
> > > > >
> > > > >

[FairfieldLife] RRRobin and His Fag Hags??

[card]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2S-AcqVz24

ROTFLMFAO!

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[seventhray27]

Your blind is showing again Ann.  Glaringly so.  I don't know how that
could be possible, but it is.
Your pulling rank here is pretty nonsensical.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
> >
> > Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant choice
of words to sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's assumption
that you are not aligned with "reality" and his writing is going to jolt
you into an ability to face life in a Robin approved more real way.
> >
> > I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how invasive
this unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end.  Combined with
the word flooding it is quite unpleasant.
>
> Neither of you have anything on my experience with Robin, not even
close, not even in the same ballpark. Three and a half years around him
physically up to 10-15 hours a day just puts my exposure to his
"mindfuckery", his "word flooding" so far beyond your ability to even
conceive of such a thing that it makes me smile, just a little. And boy,
you think he can mess with you now, 30 years ago you would have lasted
about an hour at the mic. And even during all that time I wouldn't have
characterized it as 'psychological rape". I could and would and did call
it lots of other things but never quite that. Still, you have the option
to stop reading, stop responding but you don't. I noticed recently that
when you have been absent for a while and Robin intermittently shows up
so do you. So somewhere, somehow, for some reason, you keep gravitating
toward the opportunity to interact with him. Now either stop whining and
complaining or ignore him and all things 'him' totally.
> >
> > In my view it would be Robin who would owe the apology for acting in
a way that would make someone think this term was the best way to
describe it.
> >
> > And instead of taking the feedback of how far over the boundaries
line he had crossed...
> >
> > she got and still gets the predictable pile on for feeling this way.
> >
> > Note to Share:  You will never be able to appease this unfriendly
agenda no matter what you say.  It is s double bind where the
"sincerity" of even an unnecessary apology will be judged by them.
> >
> > And again you will lose because that is how the formula works.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
wrote:
> > >
> > > Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or
> > > "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as
> > > you have not apologized for calling Robin a
> > > "psychological rapist."
> > >
> > > In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step"
> > > because you never took the first step. I'm virtually
> > > positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin
> > > as soon as you were to take the first step: he would
> > > forgive you if you apologized sincerely.
> > >
> > > That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your
> > > character.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making
amends part of an apology.  Even in our recent exchange I asked
Robin how I could make amends for misunderstanding him about his turq
post and Curtis exchange.  For me it is the making amends that is
the sine qua non of an apology and this is where the cost comes in. 
And of course the cost or amends is meant to address the actual
consequences.  Such as a restitution of money in the case of a
compulsive gambler who lost the family savings for example.Â
> > > >
> > > > But the first step is to offer
> > > >  apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other
person.  Robin and I did not get to the second step last year. 
And it seems we're not getting to it again.  But I've made my offer
and stand by it.
> > > >
> > > > As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing. 
In those days many people went to confession every week.  Also I say
it just in case I've hurt someone's feelings.  The better I know FFL
people the more I'll dispense with that.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >  From: authfriend 
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19 AM
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S
VALENTINE
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" 
wrote:
> > > > (snip)
> > > > > You and Robin seemed to be able to engage in some wonderful
> > > > > dialogue back then. And for the record, I DO think Curtis
> > > > > meant that from the BEGINNING, (I'm not bothering with the
> > > > > "outset" or the "onset", I'm not getting embroiled in the
> > > > > semantics of that)
> > > >
> > > > Right, that's irrelevant. That was laughinggull's error, and
> > > > even if LG had been correct, it would have made no difference
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:
>
> Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant choice of
words to sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's assumption that
you are not aligned with "reality" and his writing is going to jolt you
into an ability to face life in a Robin approved more real way.
>
> I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how invasive
this unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end.  Combined with
the word flooding it is quite unpleasant.
>
> In my view it would be Robin who would owe the apology for acting in a
way that would make someone think this term was the best way to describe
it.

Here, Here.  I second this motion from the man from D.C.
> And instead of taking the feedback of how far over the boundaries line
he had crossed...
>
> she got and still gets the predictable pile on for feeling this way.
>
> Note to Share:  You will never be able to appease this unfriendly
agenda no matter what you say.  It is s double bind where the
"sincerity" of even an unnecessary apology will be judged by them.
>
> And again you will lose because that is how the formula works.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@ wrote:
> >
> > Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or
> > "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as
> > you have not apologized for calling Robin a
> > "psychological rapist."
> >
> > In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step"
> > because you never took the first step. I'm virtually
> > positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin
> > as soon as you were to take the first step: he would
> > forgive you if you apologized sincerely.
> >
> > That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your
> > character.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long 
wrote:
> > >
> > > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making amends
part of an apology.  Even in our recent exchange I asked Robin how I
could make amends for misunderstanding him about his turq post and
Curtis exchange.  For me it is the making amends that is the sine
qua non of an apology and this is where the cost comes in.  And of
course the cost or amends is meant to address the actual
consequences.  Such as a restitution of money in the case of a
compulsive gambler who lost the family savings for example.Â
> > >
> > > But the first step is to offer
> > >  apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other
person.  Robin and I did not get to the second step last year. 
And it seems we're not getting to it again.  But I've made my offer
and stand by it.
> > >
> > > As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing.  In
those days many people went to confession every week.  Also I say it
just in case I've hurt someone's feelings.  The better I know FFL
people the more I'll dispense with that.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >  From: authfriend 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S
VALENTINE
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" 
wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > > You and Robin seemed to be able to engage in some wonderful
> > > > dialogue back then. And for the record, I DO think Curtis
> > > > meant that from the BEGINNING, (I'm not bothering with the
> > > > "outset" or the "onset", I'm not getting embroiled in the
> > > > semantics of that)
> > >
> > > Right, that's irrelevant. That was laughinggull's error, and
> > > even if LG had been correct, it would have made no difference
> > > to what Curtis said.
> > >
> > > > that Robin was itching for some kind of fight with you.
> > > > Curtis is arguing against this but I am not buying that
> > >
> > > There are a number of reasons not to buy it, including
> > > his insistence that it was "obvious" what he meant when
> > > what was obvious was that what he said was at best
> > > *ambiguous*.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, he completely ignored the fact that Robin
> > > was responding to an extremely unfriendly post of Share's,
> > > in which she had accused him of being "sarcastic and
> > > accusatory when [Curtis] sounded reasonable." This was
> > > with reference to Robin's critique of Curtis's response
> > > to your post about Barry, Ann.
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > > > I believe I have said this before to you, but not in quite
> > > > the same way; apologizing can be a means of avoidance. It
> > > > can appear so generalized, so non-specific that it seeks to
> > > > encompass everything and manages to address nothing relevant.
> > > > You blanket the world with apologies just in case offense
> > > > has been taken somewhere. It is like you seek to inoculate
> > > > yourself against possible offense taken by others before
> > > > they even have time to react.
> > >
> > > It also cheapens the sign

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Iron Lady' Prime Minister, Dead at 87

[merudanda]

[http://inspiyr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/negative-self-talk-head-i\
n-hands-statue.jpg]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-dead-twitter-outr\
age-1818555


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-dead-facebook-cam\
paign-1818341

 
[http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6_K6DQvVHB4/TNHf2xW-j8I/AXk/Q9VT2tuW3\
FQ/s400/pelosi-witch.jpg]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQtvBxsuSO4

  [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A_OtTeVCcAEjsAi.jpg]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap"  wrote:
>
>
>
> Cher fans on Twitter were agitated apparently:
> #nowthatchersdead
>
>
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-dead-worried-cher\
-1818681
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> >
http://abcnews.go.com/International/margaret-thatcher-britains-iron-lady\
\
> > -dead-87/story?id=13644011#.UWLN90oozDk
> >
 > y-dead-87/story?id=13644011#.UWLN90oozDk>
> > "It is with great sadness that Mark and Carol Thatcher announced
that
> > their mother Baroness Thatcher died peacefully following a stroke
this
> > morning,"
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBEREJpOvNo
> > 
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Wanna push yer luck??

[card]

How about buying some NOK?

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/nok/real-time#.UWM_apOpVPY

Seeking Alpha:

Seeking alphan kommentti sivuilta poimittua, BB vs. Nokia. Sanoisin että 
oheinen kommentoija antoi täysilaidallisen BB porukalle, täystyrmäys, knock 
down. Ei mitään lisättävää.

It is remarkable to see so many BBRY shareholders bash Nokia, fighting the idea 
of NOK being a much better turnaround play than BBRY. I studied both stocks for 
some time now, but there are some strong advantages of NOK over BBRY.

1. BB.. platform is decreasing as we speak. WP is growing. WP already is the 
third mobile platform. 
http://bit.ly/XJyx5f

WP has a richer ecosystem, with more apps as compared to BB. WP is the easiest 
platform, BB the most difficult.
http://tcrn.ch/XCn8Dh

2. WP8 has the same kernel as Windows 8, dominating the pc market, aiming at 
the tablet market. Software programmed for W8 is also suitable for WP8, that 
way being more attractive for app developpers. 

3. Nokia is dominating the Windows Phone market with a market share of 78%.
http://bit.ly/WVJopq

4. Nokia makes many high quality native WP apps, like HERE prime places, Nokia 
City Lens, Nokia Transport, Nokia Music, etc. Nokia is the only phonemaker 
allowed to tweak the WP OS.

5. Because of its mapping and location based services, which come with the WP, 
Nokia gets paid fees for every WP device sold by their competitors.

6. Nokia offers high quality smartphones (Lumia's) at all price points, which 
makes it less sensitive to the highly competitive high end market.

7. There are many reviews simply concluding that the half year old Nokia Lumia 
920 is a better smartphone than the freshly released Z10. There is none, 
declaring the opposite. The Lumia 920 has a better camera, super sensitive 
touch screen, motion pixel plus, better mapping, wireless charging, better 
microphones and a more stable and more fluid OS than BB10.
http://bit.ly/15AXY9u
http://bit.ly/Z3NKhb

The successor of the Lumia 920, EOS, is already rumoured to make an appearance 
at the end of this summer.

8. Nokia offers also the Asha (feautere/ smartphone) family at sub $ 100 price 
points, giving Nokia the strongest foothold in emerging markets. The Asha 
family still offers a better price to quality ratio as compared to its direct 
competitor Samsung Rex series.
http://bit.ly/17824cP
http://bit.ly/YUUlrO

9. Nokia still has the biggest sales network of all phone manufacturers. 

10. Nokia has the most patents (+ 20.000) of all companies in the mobile tech 
sector. Nokia cashes in nearly 700 million yearly on IP royalty payments. This 
amount is still increasing. Amongst others Apple and Blackberry are paying 
Nokia for every phone they sell.

11. Nokia Siemens Networks, soon the second largest vendor of telecom equipment 
is another division within the Nokia group, attributing for about 47% of 
Nokia's sales.

12. Nokia owns HERE, the best mapping service in the world, available in 4 out 
of every 5 modern cars and used by many world class companies, like Oracle, 
Amazon, Yandex, Nikon, Garmin, Microsoft, Yahoo, Groupon, etc. 

13. Nokia keeps on to be leading in R&D, camera technology, location based 
services, unique material application, a.o. graphene.
http://bit.ly/1782b84

14. Nokia has more financial means and R&D power to develop new models and 
software upgrades. In the time Blackberry developed the Z10 phone, Nokia 
developed the whole Lumia WP7 series as well as the whole Lumia WP8 series.

Muoks. onkin lisättävää, jotain tärkeää unohtui. BB:n verrattuna Nokialla on 
vielä yksi merkittävä valttikortti yritysasiakkaista kilpailtaessa. Office 
integraatio. MS:n valtava asiakaspohja jotka toimii windows ympäristössä.

Viestiä on muokannut: deflaatiopeikko 8.4.2013 23:44

[FairfieldLife] Bootleg UK TM teachers

[Rick Archer]

Anyone know of a TM teacher in the Birmingham, UK area who is teaching
independently, and thus inexpensively?

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[laughinggull108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
> 
> > On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:23 AM, laughinggull108  
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Man what hypocritical bullshit.
> >> > 
> >> > If it's Barry and Curtis it's all impartial, monotonous set of POV's, 
> >> > it's a rap, it's stream of consciousness, it's harmless likes and 
> >> > dislikes, just benign preferences.
> >> > 
> >> > If its others it's mindfuckery, it's unpleasant, unfriendly, unwelcome 
> >> > word flood, it's toxic energy directed at strangers, it's trollish 
> >> > behavior - even psychological rape's now approved by His Holiness.
> >> > 
> >> > A master of deception at work.
> >> 
> >> So true, Kapati, so true. Please continue...
> > 
> > Wrong. Krishna is the real kapati - But Rakshasaas are also kapati. What's 
> > the difference dear LG Shishyaa?
> 
> God I fucked up, even Krishna fucks up LOL. Anyway, once again what's the 
> difference Bhakta?
>

Raviji, as one deals, He'll also...He reciprocates. That is Krsna.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ravi Chivukula]

God - you are paranoid. But then again with a fan following of the likes of 
Steve, Share, Barry one should always err on the side of caution.


On Apr 8, 2013, at 1:00 PM, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:

> If you are reading this please understand that I ma dealing with an internet 
> troll who has put my name on something I did not write in an attempt to get a 
> response from me. 
> 
> This is my response.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > 
> > Thank you for your letter. I really don't understand your relentless 
> > attacks on me, Robin. I disagree with you about things you take very 
> > seriously. Why the problem?
> > 
> > Look, Robin, the fact that I have a different POV than you do about 
> > something does not mean you have to try to find out some psychological 
> > reason why I would come to a different conclusion about this. I am simply 
> > responding to you, Robin, and it seems you don't like this.
> > 
> > But I am starting to feel badly on your behalf. For someone to rage away, 
> > trying to find what is wrong with the other person's psyche which would 
> > explain their difference of opinion on some matter--Robin, this is bizarre. 
> > I have only done one thing: I have called you on this.
> > 
> > And you give plenty of evidence why you don't like this.
> > 
> > Once again, I make a simple request (you are just being your ironic asshole 
> > self in your letter below: you are not serious about the clinical versus 
> > philosophical prescription; I shall pass over that): You express your POV; 
> > I will express mine. And if you are offended that I refuse to be converted 
> > to your POV, *live with it*, Robin. Don't you see what I and others have 
> > found out about you? You don't wish to be contradicted, Robin. The moment 
> > someone opposes you, you start to analyze their inner motivation (For not 
> > collapsing their different POV, and folding into you own--Is this what you 
> > did in those seminars, Robin? Ah, fuck it. Don't answer that. I have had 
> > enough of that shit from Ann today).
> > 
> > You have to stop doing this, Robin. Almost everyone on FFL liked me, 
> > respected me, admired me (with a few exceptions; but you are familiar with 
> > those who have determined to be my enemy--and Barry's--for as long as there 
> > is life) before you came on board. You have essentially confused and 
> > disturbed people with your word floods, Robin. They don't help the cause of 
> > truth-finding on this forum. You have to get this through your swelled 
> > (still some hallucinatory effects there, Robin?) head. Once you do--and I 
> > know you are being facetious and mocking with your proposed thought 
> > experiment (yes, now become "existential"--Funny, that, Robin)--there will 
> > be more sunlight here on FFL, Robin.
> > 
> > You are the one--you are not going to like this, Robin--who darkens the 
> > skies here. I am only interested in letting in more `reality' [sunlight], 
> > Robin. You are the person who stirs everything up. I don't like it. Barry 
> > doesn't like it. Salyavin doesn't like it. And Bhairitu doesn't like it. 
> > Many more would echo this sentiment, Robin.
> > 
> > Look, I have made a huge compromise in writing the way I have here. I am 
> > almost (please consider this a psychological favour, Robin; I think my 
> > ordinary prose is just too hard-hitting for you; I prefer your more 
> > effeminate style--and I mean that in a good way; don't fret) imitating your 
> > style here, Robin.
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Curtis,
> > > 
> > > I have spent the last half hour assuming you, Share, Barry, Salyavin, 
> > > Bhairitu (they are many others, I know) are all onto something when it 
> > > comes to me.
> > > 
> > > The thought experiment. Now an existential one.
> > > 
> > > I have, then, to repeat, decided you are essentially right about me (as 
> > > are other critics). What I am troubled by now, however, is whether to 
> > > approach myself as if I have mental problems (as Barry and Salyavin would 
> > > have it) or whether it is something that can be changed by adopting an 
> > > entirely different attitude towards persons who disagree with me [there 
> > > is one person who stands out in this regard as you know]--And perhaps 
> > > more importantly, altering my attitude towards myself: viz. I am blind 
> > > when it comes to knowing my motives, blind when it comes to understanding 
> > > who I am, blind when it comes to understanding when criticism (about 
> > > myself) is valid, blind when it comes to estimating how perspicuous my 
> > > posts are.
> > > 
> > > But what I need to know, Curtis, is: is this mental health problem or a 
> > > philosophical problem (as it were: I am subject to personal amendment via 
> > > examination of self)?
> > > 
> > > Because if it is clinical, that is more than depressing. As I shall have 
> > > to seek professional help.
> > 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:

> On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:23 AM, laughinggull108  wrote:
> 
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Man what hypocritical bullshit.
>> > 
>> > If it's Barry and Curtis it's all impartial, monotonous set of POV's, it's 
>> > a rap, it's stream of consciousness, it's harmless likes and dislikes, 
>> > just benign preferences.
>> > 
>> > If its others it's mindfuckery, it's unpleasant, unfriendly, unwelcome 
>> > word flood, it's toxic energy directed at strangers, it's trollish 
>> > behavior - even psychological rape's now approved by His Holiness.
>> > 
>> > A master of deception at work.
>> 
>> So true, Kapati, so true. Please continue...
> 
> Wrong. Krishna is the real kapati - But Rakshasaas are also kapati. What's 
> the difference dear LG Shishyaa?

God I fucked up, even Krishna fucks up LOL. Anyway, once again what's the 
difference Bhakta?

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:


> Try getting into a hostile discussion with Curtis
> sometime. You'll see quickly what the problem is.

Priceless!


>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > > So somewhere, somehow, for some reason, you keep gravitating
> > > > toward the opportunity to interact with him. Now either stop 
> > > > whining and complaining or ignore him and all things 'him'
> > > > totally.
> > > > 
> > > > Huh? No he doesn't.
> > > 
> > > She's right, salyavin. It's happened more than once.
> > 
> > You're in your own little world.
> 
> Let me say it another way: She's right, salyavin. It's
> happened more than once.
> 
> > > > Curtis is often on here and he always actually
> > > > brings something worth reading, unlike Robin who just
> > > > seems to bring his mental health problems for an airing.
> > > 
> > > Robin has made many valuable contributions to FFL
> > > when he isn't being harassed by those who find him
> > > threatening.
> > 
> > Perplexing, perhaps. Long winded and egotistical, for sure.
> 
> Valuable. But only if you read them, of course.
> 
> > But threatening? I think that must be a projection of yours.
> 
> Er, who am I threatened by, do you think, salyavin?
> 
> > And obsessed, definitely. He said he wanted to fight Curtis
> > yonks ago and now he pops up to do just that
> 
> Actually he popped up to post his analysis of Barry
> after Barry had left one of his particularly
> loathesome posts.
> 
> When both of them have been here, he and Curtis have
> fought on a regular basis since they had their big
> disgreement back in 2011. Where have you been?
> 
> And you appear to have forgotten that it was Curtis
> who started it this time (as he frequently does--not
> always, but frequently). Opsie!
> 
>  and wow is it
> > boring. But not to you obviously, because you're obsessed with
> > Curtis too and like having someone to play with. I'm just glad 
> > I'm normal.
> 
> Try getting into a hostile discussion with Curtis
> sometime. You'll see quickly what the problem is.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > > Like Judy, the guy is
> > > > obsessed and it's fucking weird to watch.
> > > > 
> > > > I also can't imagine still being impressed with Robins
> > > > empty cult.
> > > 
> > > Hard to be impressed by something you don't know
> > > anything about.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Is only lasting an hour at the mic something to be ashamed of then?
> > > > Seems there is a lot of ego involved there
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:23 AM, laughinggull108  wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  
> wrote:
> >
> > Man what hypocritical bullshit.
> > 
> > If it's Barry and Curtis it's all impartial, monotonous set of POV's, it's 
> > a rap, it's stream of consciousness, it's harmless likes and dislikes, just 
> > benign preferences.
> > 
> > If its others it's mindfuckery, it's unpleasant, unfriendly, unwelcome word 
> > flood, it's toxic energy directed at strangers, it's trollish behavior - 
> > even psychological rape's now approved by His Holiness.
> > 
> > A master of deception at work.
> 
> So true, Kapati, so true. Please continue...

Wrong. Krishna is the real kapati - But Rakshasaas are also kapati. What's the 
difference dear LG Shishyaa?

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > So somewhere, somehow, for some reason, you keep gravitating
> > > toward the opportunity to interact with him. Now either stop 
> > > whining and complaining or ignore him and all things 'him'
> > > totally.
> > > 
> > > Huh? No he doesn't.
> > 
> > She's right, salyavin. It's happened more than once.
> 
> You're in your own little world.

Let me say it another way: She's right, salyavin. It's
happened more than once.

> > > Curtis is often on here and he always actually
> > > brings something worth reading, unlike Robin who just
> > > seems to bring his mental health problems for an airing.
> > 
> > Robin has made many valuable contributions to FFL
> > when he isn't being harassed by those who find him
> > threatening.
> 
> Perplexing, perhaps. Long winded and egotistical, for sure.

Valuable. But only if you read them, of course.

> But threatening? I think that must be a projection of yours.

Er, who am I threatened by, do you think, salyavin?

> And obsessed, definitely. He said he wanted to fight Curtis
> yonks ago and now he pops up to do just that

Actually he popped up to post his analysis of Barry
after Barry had left one of his particularly
loathesome posts.

When both of them have been here, he and Curtis have
fought on a regular basis since they had their big
disgreement back in 2011. Where have you been?

And you appear to have forgotten that it was Curtis
who started it this time (as he frequently does--not
always, but frequently). Opsie!

 and wow is it
> boring. But not to you obviously, because you're obsessed with
> Curtis too and like having someone to play with. I'm just glad 
> I'm normal.

Try getting into a hostile discussion with Curtis
sometime. You'll see quickly what the problem is.



> 
> 
> > > Like Judy, the guy is
> > > obsessed and it's fucking weird to watch.
> > > 
> > > I also can't imagine still being impressed with Robins
> > > empty cult.
> > 
> > Hard to be impressed by something you don't know
> > anything about.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Is only lasting an hour at the mic something to be ashamed of then?
> > > Seems there is a lot of ego involved there
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> (snip)
> > So somewhere, somehow, for some reason, you keep gravitating
> > toward the opportunity to interact with him. Now either stop 
> > whining and complaining or ignore him and all things 'him'
> > totally.
> > 
> > Huh? No he doesn't.
> 
> She's right, salyavin. It's happened more than once.

You're in your own little world.

 
> > Curtis is often on here and he always actually
> > brings something worth reading, unlike Robin who just
> > seems to bring his mental health problems for an airing.
> 
> Robin has made many valuable contributions to FFL
> when he isn't being harassed by those who find him
> threatening.


Perplexing, perhaps. Long winded and egotistical, for sure.

But threatening? I think that must be a projection of yours.

And obsessed, definitely. He said he wanted to fight Curtis
yonks ago and now he pops up to do just that and wow is it
boring. But not to you obviously, because you're obsessed with
Curtis too and like having someone to play with. I'm just glad 
I'm normal.


> > Like Judy, the guy is
> > obsessed and it's fucking weird to watch.
> > 
> > I also can't imagine still being impressed with Robins
> > empty cult.
> 
> Hard to be impressed by something you don't know
> anything about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Is only lasting an hour at the mic something to be ashamed of then?
> > Seems there is a lot of ego involved there
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Robin's Four Posts to Curtis

[Robin Carlsen]

These are my four posts to Curtis. If you wish to understand the dispute 
between Curtis and myself I hardly think you will understand anything really 
significant without reading these posts. They are a response to a Curtis post. 
They are, then, interactive (Curtis vs Robin) from beginning to end.

I have put all of myself into each one of them. If they are faulty, or 
inadequate--or unfair--I would like to know why. For as I say, I can be judged 
as to my motives and my character (as revealed on FFL at least) by these four 
posts.

Curtis has thus far chosen not to address any of the four posts. If he does, 
there is always the chance I will realize that I was fundamentally wrong in my 
judgment of the soundness of his own arguments and the felt truth of his 
animadversions.

Those who make critical comments about this serious conflict between Curtis and 
myself--without reading these posts--are not in a position to say anything 
which means much. Although there will be those of you who will immediately 
quarrel with my having said this.

These posts, then, represent the conversation between Curtis and myself. If you 
come down on Curtis's side after reading them thoroughly--and can explain your 
reasons--that is a pretty good bet that you have something significant to say. 
And I will read it, and if possible, respond to it.

Contrary to what other posters have said, I believe the issues we are 
controverting here are extremely significant, and will go to the meaning of 
what is contained in that event when  we have to give an account of 
ourselves--That is, at the end of our life here inside the physical world.

Should this happen.

That is the place, then, from which I composed each of these four posts (April 
6, 2013).


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/340243

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/340259

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/340286

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/340308

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ravi Chivukula]

You did not make Ann an example of Robin's behavior - God this is hilarious !!!

"You are hilarious in the seriousness with which you want to wound anyone who 
decides to carry the truth forward in the teeth of your foul and perverse 
opposition."

If I were you I would call this an incoherent tirade.


On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:23 AM, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:

> You really needed that many words to express that?
> 
> Your postings here are not an interaction with other people. It is all going 
> on inside your own head.
> 
> I am under orders from Ann to ignore you now, but you apparently are free to 
> rant away. Man you must have done a number on her up at that mic.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Curtis,
> > 
> > I am going to pay tribute to you.
> > 
> > Your guile is so immaculate, so indefatigable, that the only final answer 
> > to you is:
> > 
> > DO IT, CURTIS. DO IT. WE ARE JUST GOING TO WATCH.
> > 
> > In some way I'd almost say you are as inspired as Christ.
> > 
> > Your dishonesty is becoming one of the Ten Wonders of the universe.
> > 
> > There is no intelligence, no power, no love, no reason existing anywhere 
> > which could ever cause to issue from you a tremor of humility.
> > 
> > I feel triumphant here--in a rather quiet and unusual way--in doing 
> > something anti-climactic (you are rejuvenated after yesterday, right?): 
> > writing to you, Curtis, to tell you your murderously conscientious 
> > determination to keep bullshitting on this forum (when it comes to matters 
> > of interpersonal truthfulness) can finally only be met by a simple: I will 
> > leave you alone.
> > 
> > Still, you will never answer those four posts from Saturday.
> > 
> > Your are hilarious in the seriousness with which you want to wound anyone 
> > who decides to carry the truth forward in the teeth of your foul and 
> > perverse opposition.
> > 
> > But there is a need for mercy here, because, it would seem, you are acting 
> > the part you were cast to play.
> > 
> > In my senior Shakespeare course at university, we analyzed the characters 
> > in his plays.
> > 
> > You are one character in a bigger play than Shakespeare ever imagined, 
> > Curtis.
> > 
> > You show us who you are. And you make Iago seem like a child. And you force 
> > analysis by how you behave. [It you were a character in a Shakespeare play 
> > I would look forward to writing an essay about what you reveal about who 
> > you are in your actions. In this case, the stage is this forum.)
> > 
> > I respect your philosophy, Curtis; and your performance (at all times); but 
> > I am more inspired to know you will never go out of character than I am 
> > certain that God, as he once existed, has decided to leave what he created.
> > 
> > Had I not known what I knew before I met you, Curtis, I would have become 
> > religious from reading how you argue here on FFL.
> > 
> > You don't quite get the same sensation in your heart when you lie as 
> > someone who does not lie, but nevertheless it is a sensation that goes to 
> > the sublime.
> > 
> > You understand what I am saying here, Curtis: to oppose you is to draw out 
> > the real person. Curtis. That person does not know even in his imagination 
> > what it feels like to be someone who cannot help but let life form them, 
> > alter them, make them, break them, exalt them.
> > 
> > You are seemingly self-made from the beginning, Curtis.
> > 
> > You have secured what seems to me to be an imperishable place in creation.
> > 
> > No one can see what you are doing, Curtis. Only you.
> > 
> > CURTIS'S ANSWER TO ROBIN'S RANT:
> > 
> > Curtis: Robin, no one is afraid of you anymore. You think you can lay down 
> > your trip on others--but it ain't going to fly, Robin. We see through your 
> > game. This torrent of abuse will not make true what is not true. You can't 
> > have your way around here, Robin. I am not going to let you get away with 
> > it. I have been honest and forthcoming from the beginning with you, Robin; 
> > but you don't take criticism well--and I have yet to see you respond to the 
> > intelligent feedback I keep giving you. Don't you see the irony of all 
> > this, Robin? Those who are defending you have deprived themselves of the 
> > integrity (they don't realize they have done this, mind you; their 
> > self-righteousness tells us this) that I have decided will remain in my 
> > possession. You just don't like it when people disagree with you, Robin.
> > 
> > And your four posts from yesterday: word flood gets it, Robin. There was 
> > nothing there-I read through all of it carefully enough--for me to answer. 
> > You were just having your own experience of yourself, imprisoned in your 
> > own egotism--although I grant you: you don't think this is the case. But it 
> > is, Robin.
> > 
> > Do you really believe you can win this thing, Robin? Those who come to my 
> > defence here on FFL, to a person they are brave and sinc

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

If you are reading this please understand that I ma dealing with an internet 
troll who has put my name on something I did not write in an attempt to get a 
response from me. 

This is my response.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> 
> Thank you for your letter. I really don't understand your relentless attacks 
> on me, Robin. I disagree with you about things you take very seriously. Why 
> the problem?
> 
> Look, Robin, the fact that I have a different POV than you do about something 
> does not mean you have to try to find out some psychological reason why I 
> would come to a different conclusion about this. I am simply responding to 
> you, Robin, and it seems you don't like this.
> 
> But I am starting to feel badly on your behalf. For someone to rage away, 
> trying to find what is wrong with the other person's psyche which would 
> explain their difference of opinion on some matter--Robin, this is bizarre. I 
> have only done one thing: I have called you on this.
> 
> And you give plenty of evidence why you don't like this.
> 
> Once again, I make a simple request (you are just being your ironic asshole 
> self in your letter below: you are not serious about the clinical versus 
> philosophical prescription; I shall pass over that): You express your POV; I 
> will express mine. And if you are offended that I refuse to be converted to 
> your POV, *live with it*, Robin. Don't you see what I and others have found 
> out about you? You don't wish to be contradicted, Robin. The moment someone 
> opposes you, you start to analyze their inner motivation (For not collapsing 
> their different POV, and folding into you own--Is this what you did in those 
> seminars, Robin? Ah, fuck it. Don't answer that. I have had enough of that 
> shit from Ann today).
> 
> You have to stop doing this, Robin. Almost everyone on FFL liked me, 
> respected me, admired me (with a few exceptions; but you are familiar with 
> those who have determined to be my enemy--and Barry's--for as long as there 
> is life) before you came on board. You have essentially confused and 
> disturbed people with your word floods, Robin. They don't help the cause of 
> truth-finding on this forum. You have to get this through your swelled (still 
> some hallucinatory effects there, Robin?) head. Once you do--and I know you 
> are being facetious and mocking with your proposed thought experiment (yes, 
> now become "existential"--Funny, that, Robin)--there will be more sunlight 
> here on FFL, Robin.
> 
> You are the one--you are not going to like this, Robin--who darkens the skies 
> here. I am only interested in letting in more `reality' [sunlight], Robin. 
> You are the person who stirs everything up. I don't like it. Barry doesn't 
> like it. Salyavin doesn't like it. And Bhairitu doesn't like it. Many more 
> would echo this sentiment, Robin.
> 
> Look, I have made a huge compromise in writing the way I have here. I am 
> almost (please consider this a psychological favour, Robin; I think my 
> ordinary prose is just too hard-hitting for you; I prefer your more 
> effeminate style--and I mean that in a good way; don't fret) imitating your 
> style here, Robin.
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Curtis,
> > 
> > I have spent the last half hour assuming you, Share, Barry, Salyavin, 
> > Bhairitu (they are many others, I know) are all onto something when it 
> > comes to me.
> > 
> > The thought experiment. Now an existential one.
> > 
> > I have, then, to repeat, decided you are essentially right about me (as are 
> > other critics). What I am troubled by now, however, is whether to approach 
> > myself as if I have mental problems (as Barry and Salyavin would have it) 
> > or whether it is something that can be changed by adopting an entirely 
> > different attitude towards persons who disagree with me [there is one 
> > person who stands out in this regard as you know]--And perhaps more 
> > importantly, altering my attitude towards myself: viz. I am blind when it 
> > comes to knowing my motives, blind when it comes to understanding who I am, 
> > blind when it comes to understanding when criticism (about myself) is 
> > valid, blind when it comes to estimating how perspicuous my posts are.
> > 
> > But what I need to know, Curtis, is: is this mental health problem or a 
> > philosophical problem (as it were: I am subject to personal amendment via 
> > examination of self)?
> > 
> > Because if it is clinical, that is more than depressing. As I shall have to 
> > seek professional help.
> > 
> > If you decide I need to do this, is there some way we could keep this 
> > private between you and me?
> > 
> > Let's say that if you do not deem my problem to be psychopathological, you 
> > will just say: "You are nuts, Robin." And if you deem my problem to in fact 
> > be psychopathological, you will just say: "You are fine, Robin."
> > 
> > I promise to cease posting if

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:

> Also I am willing to discuss any issues from last year with
> you, but offline so as to spare the FFLers. Judy has been
> making a valiant effort to lure posters down that particular
> rabbit hole, which as far as I can tell goes all the way to
> China.

It goes all the way to your and Curtis's dishonesty and
hostility, Share, but no further than that. It's no
wonder you want to take it offline.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Share Long]

Dear Robin, you left out laughinggull who called you a performer and feste who 
called you the rooster who could out crow all others.

As for me, I believed you when you told Curtis that you want to help insert 
more of me into me.  I think you want to help people have
 more contact with reality.  And who knows, maybe you're accomplishing just 
that.  But I do think we're ALL helping each other in this way.  Some of us are 
just less identified with that role.  Anyhoo, I also think that you have that 
Saraswati nadi situation going on.  Beyond that I'm not prepared to make any 
diagnosis.  

As I said in another post this morning, I have apologized to you for 
misinterpreting you about turq and Curtis and I have offered to make amends.  
Also I am willing to discuss any issues from last year with you, but offline so 
as to spare the FFLers.  Judy has been making a valiant effort to lure posters 
down that particular rabbit hole, which as far as I can tell goes all the way 
to China.  But I wouldn't call it the most scenic route IMHO.  Would you?
Share   

Dear Curtis,

I have spent the last half hour assuming you, Share, Barry, Salyavin, Bhairitu
(they are many others, I know) are all onto something when it comes to me.

snip

Believe it or not, I *am* feeling better.

Thank you, Curtis.

Robin





 

  










 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

Dear Robin,

Thank you for your letter. I really don't understand your relentless attacks on 
me, Robin. I disagree with you about things you take very seriously. Why the 
problem?

Look, Robin, the fact that I have a different POV than you do about something 
does not mean you have to try to find out some psychological reason why I would 
come to a different conclusion about this. I am simply responding to you, 
Robin, and it seems you don't like this.

But I am starting to feel badly on your behalf. For someone to rage away, 
trying to find what is wrong with the other person's psyche which would explain 
their difference of opinion on some matter--Robin, this is bizarre. I have only 
done one thing: I have called you on this.

And you give plenty of evidence why you don't like this.

Once again, I make a simple request (you are just being your ironic asshole 
self in your letter below: you are not serious about the clinical versus 
philosophical prescription; I shall pass over that): You express your POV; I 
will express mine. And if you are offended that I refuse to be converted to 
your POV, *live with it*, Robin. Don't you see what I and others have found out 
about you? You don't wish to be contradicted, Robin. The moment someone opposes 
you, you start to analyze their inner motivation (For not collapsing their 
different POV, and folding into you own--Is this what you did in those 
seminars, Robin? Ah, fuck it. Don't answer that. I have had enough of that shit 
from Ann today).

You have to stop doing this, Robin. Almost everyone on FFL liked me, respected 
me, admired me (with a few exceptions; but you are familiar with those who have 
determined to be my enemy--and Barry's--for as long as there is life) before 
you came on board. You have essentially confused and disturbed people with your 
word floods, Robin. They don't help the cause of truth-finding on this forum. 
You have to get this through your swelled (still some hallucinatory effects 
there, Robin?) head. Once you do--and I know you are being facetious and 
mocking with your proposed thought experiment (yes, now become 
"existential"--Funny, that, Robin)--there will be more sunlight here on FFL, 
Robin.

You are the one--you are not going to like this, Robin--who darkens the skies 
here. I am only interested in letting in more `reality' [sunlight], Robin. You 
are the person who stirs everything up. I don't like it. Barry doesn't like it. 
Salyavin doesn't like it. And Bhairitu doesn't like it. Many more would echo 
this sentiment, Robin.

Look, I have made a huge compromise in writing the way I have here. I am almost 
(please consider this a psychological favour, Robin; I think my ordinary prose 
is just too hard-hitting for you; I prefer your more effeminate style--and I 
mean that in a good way; don't fret) imitating your style here, Robin.

That's about it, Robin. I appreciate your reading this.

Good rap so far today. I enjoyed it.

Curtis


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Dear Curtis,
> 
> I have spent the last half hour assuming you, Share, Barry, Salyavin, 
> Bhairitu (they are many others, I know) are all onto something when it comes 
> to me.
> 
> The thought experiment. Now an existential one.
> 
> I have, then, to repeat, decided you are essentially right about me (as are 
> other critics). What I am troubled by now, however, is whether to approach 
> myself as if I have mental problems (as Barry and Salyavin would have it) or 
> whether it is something that can be changed by adopting an entirely different 
> attitude towards persons who disagree with me [there is one person who stands 
> out in this regard as you know]--And perhaps more importantly, altering my 
> attitude towards myself: viz. I am blind when it comes to knowing my motives, 
> blind when it comes to understanding who I am, blind when it comes to 
> understanding when criticism (about myself) is valid, blind when it comes to 
> estimating how perspicuous my posts are.
> 
> But what I need to know, Curtis, is: is this mental health problem or a 
> philosophical problem (as it were: I am subject to personal amendment via 
> examination of self)?
> 
> Because if it is clinical, that is more than depressing. As I shall have to 
> seek professional help.
> 
> If you decide I need to do this, is there some way we could keep this private 
> between you and me?
> 
> Let's say that if you do not deem my problem to be psychopathological, you 
> will just say: "You are nuts, Robin." And if you deem my problem to in fact 
> be psychopathological, you will just say: "You are fine, Robin."
> 
> I promise to cease posting if you oblige me in this way. I mean, unless you 
> choose to answer those four posts from Saturday. (Then, whether crazy or not, 
> I think you will understand my desperate need to have some way of preserving 
> my reputation on FFL as someone who never gives in, or gives up--Oops! that 
> just may decide which kind of p

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

Dear Curtis,

I have spent the last half hour assuming you, Share, Barry, Salyavin, Bhairitu 
(they are many others, I know) are all onto something when it comes to me.

The thought experiment. Now an existential one.

I have, then, to repeat, decided you are essentially right about me (as are 
other critics). What I am troubled by now, however, is whether to approach 
myself as if I have mental problems (as Barry and Salyavin would have it) or 
whether it is something that can be changed by adopting an entirely different 
attitude towards persons who disagree with me [there is one person who stands 
out in this regard as you know]--And perhaps more importantly, altering my 
attitude towards myself: viz. I am blind when it comes to knowing my motives, 
blind when it comes to understanding who I am, blind when it comes to 
understanding when criticism (about myself) is valid, blind when it comes to 
estimating how perspicuous my posts are.

But what I need to know, Curtis, is: is this mental health problem or a 
philosophical problem (as it were: I am subject to personal amendment via 
examination of self)?

Because if it is clinical, that is more than depressing. As I shall have to 
seek professional help.

If you decide I need to do this, is there some way we could keep this private 
between you and me?

Let's say that if you do not deem my problem to be psychopathological, you will 
just say: "You are nuts, Robin." And if you deem my problem to in fact be 
psychopathological, you will just say: "You are fine, Robin."

I promise to cease posting if you oblige me in this way. I mean, unless you 
choose to answer those four posts from Saturday. (Then, whether crazy or not, I 
think you will understand my desperate need to have some way of preserving my 
reputation on FFL as someone who never gives in, or gives up--Oops! that just 
may decide which kind of problem I have, what I just wrote there. I see that 
now, Curtis. Still, I am not going prejudge this matter.)

I think we should just wipe the slate clean here, Curtis. Until you say 
something bad about me, I won't say anything bad about you.

This, then, will be my last word on FFL until I hear from you as to how I 
should proceed.

Believe it or not, I *am* feeling better.

Thank you, Curtis.

Robin

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:

 
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:

Curtis1: Sorry Robin, I'm gunna have to let your word flood posts stand on 
their own without commentary. I think that does you the most justice because 
Judy has informed me that when I respond I can keep others from seeing the 
truth of your post. 
 
Hey great job on deflecting the feedback.  Not a drop ever reached you.  I 
guess you must have ascertained that I really didn't believe what I wrote so 
you could dismiss it out of hand.
 
Robin1: Well, since you *didn't* believe what [you] wrote, I feel it would have 
been naive of me not to have "dismiss[ed] it out of hand." 

But I have not, Curtis. 

I wrote four posts to you yesterday. Those four posts, each one of them, 
constitutes a comprehensive response to what you wrote to me this morning, 
which I just responded to now.
 
We are talking about a Curtis Principle.
 
But I think I might not forget *this*: "I guess you must have ascertained that 
I really didn't believe what I wrote so you could dismiss it out of hand". 
Orgasm.
 
You came, Curtis. I finally got you to come.
 
 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of
> > > the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the
> > > least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality
> > > Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-)
> > > 
> > > People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic
> > > to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read
> > > and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is
> > > that people would have to shower less if they just
> > > ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and
> > > pristine snow he is.
> > > 
> > > [Barry about Robin--from yesterday)
> > > 
> > > CURTIS:
> > > 
> > > In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that I am 
> > > referring only to his 
> > > "intensely opinionated posts"--not, for example, to the posts he just 
> > > wrote from Paris.
> > > 
> > > But you knew this.
> > > 
> > > What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my analysis of 
> > > him.
> > > 
> > > It is his "freak of nature" persona [AWB], not his fluent and engaging 
> > > travelogues--or even movie reviews.
> > > 
> > > But you knew this.
> > > 
> > > The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a 
> > > comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are 
> > > specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my analysis of 
> > > him. They are not.
> > > 
> > > Your conscience hardly show

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > I find people who insist on getting apologies to be very 
> > tiresome. It's s form of aggression. 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> > In this case, it is not even the "wronged" person who is 
> > insisting on it, but his self-appointed protector. 
> > Authfriend reminds me of a mother hen protecting one of 
> > her chicks, without noticing, apparently, that her "chick" 
> > is a full-grown rooster who can and does out-crow anyone 
> > on the block.

Good description of Robin. However, that he can protect
himself just fine doesn't mean I can't have my own issues
with the behavior and ethics of some of the people here.

> For the record, the technical term for this type of person
> is "fag hag." Contrary to popular belief, this term has 
> nothing to do with whether the people being "protected" 
> are gay or not

Actually, contrary to Barry's belief, the term has
nothing to do with anybody "protecting" anybody; it
refers to a woman who tends to hang out with gay men.

> only that the self-appointed "protector" 
> seeks to gain power and adulation from them by stepping in 
> as their "savior" as often as humanly possible, thus 
> demonstrating that they are unable to protect themselves.

By Barry's definition of "fag hag," then, it applies to
both Curtis and himself as well as a few others of their
fans who rush to protect them whenever they're criticized.

(snip)
> You can thank me for expressing the whole scenario this
> succinctly and more accurately later. My work is done here.

Yes, thank you for making it so clear that you believe
Curtis is unable to protect himself. ;-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ravi Chivukula]

"Yeah, I can't believe the adolescent hoo-ha gets the patients in the 
Funny Farm Lounge going. Guess we need to up their meds. ;-)"

Did you forget - It's radiation Uncleji that clouding your mind. Don't let all 
this distract you - you are the pride of all Bay Area conspiracy theorists - 
don't let them down !!!


On Apr 8, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Bhairitu  wrote:

> Yeah, I can't believe the adolescent hoo-ha gets the patients in the 
> Funny Farm Lounge going. Guess we need to up their meds. ;-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ravi Chivukula]

No salyavin baby if you can move past your fascination, obsession, envy for 
chins and your obsession for Venn diagrams you can make your idiotic brain 
think straight.


On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:57 AM, "salyavin808"  wrote:

> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant choice of 
> > > words to sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's assumption that 
> > > you are not aligned with "reality" and his writing is going to jolt you 
> > > into an ability to face life in a Robin approved more real way.
> > > 
> > > I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how invasive this 
> > > unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end. Combined with the 
> > > word flooding it is quite unpleasant.
> > 
> > Neither of you have anything on my experience with Robin, not even close, 
> > not even in the same ballpark. Three and a half years around him physically 
> > up to 10-15 hours a day just puts my exposure to his "mindfuckery", his 
> > "word flooding" so far beyond your ability to even conceive of such a thing 
> > that it makes me smile, just a little. And boy, you think he can mess with 
> > you now, 30 years ago you would have lasted about an hour at the mic. And 
> > even during all that time I wouldn't have characterized it as 
> > 'psychological rape". I could and would and did call it lots of other 
> > things but never quite that. Still, you have the option to stop reading, 
> > stop responding but you don't. I noticed recently that when you have been 
> > absent for a while and Robin intermittently shows up so do you. So 
> > somewhere, somehow, for some reason, you keep gravitating toward the 
> > opportunity to interact with him. Now either stop whining and complaining 
> > or ignore him and all things 'him' totally.
> >
> 
> Huh? No he doesn't. Curtis is often on here and he always actually
> brings something worth reading, unlike Robin who just seems to bring
> his mental health problems for an airing. Like Judy, the guy is
> obsessed and it's fucking weird to watch.
> 
> I also can't imagine still being impressed with Robins empty cult.
> Is only lasting an hour at the mic something to be ashamed of then?
> Seems there is a lot of ego involved there
> 
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[laughinggull108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> Man what hypocritical bullshit.
> 
> If it's Barry and Curtis it's all impartial, monotonous set of POV's, it's a 
> rap, it's stream of consciousness, it's harmless likes and dislikes, just 
> benign preferences.
> 
> If its others it's mindfuckery, it's unpleasant, unfriendly, unwelcome word 
> flood, it's toxic energy directed at strangers, it's trollish behavior - even 
> psychological rape's now approved by His Holiness.
> 
> A master of deception at work.

So true, Kapati, so true. Please continue...

> On Apr 8, 2013, at 7:40 AM, "curtisdeltablues"  wrote:
> 
> > Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant choice of words 
> > to sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's assumption that you are 
> > not aligned with "reality" and his writing is going to jolt you into an 
> > ability to face life in a Robin approved more real way.
> > 
> > I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how invasive this 
> > unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end. Combined with the word 
> > flooding it is quite unpleasant.
> > 
> > In my view it would be Robin who would owe the apology for acting in a way 
> > that would make someone think this term was the best way to describe it.
> > 
> > And instead of taking the feedback of how far over the boundaries line he 
> > had crossed...
> > 
> > she got and still gets the predictable pile on for feeling this way.
> > 
> > Note to Share: You will never be able to appease this unfriendly agenda no 
> > matter what you say. It is s double bind where the "sincerity" of even an 
> > unnecessary apology will be judged by them.
> > 
> > And again you will lose because that is how the formula works. 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or
> > > "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as
> > > you have not apologized for calling Robin a
> > > "psychological rapist."
> > > 
> > > In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step"
> > > because you never took the first step. I'm virtually
> > > positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin
> > > as soon as you were to take the first step: he would
> > > forgive you if you apologized sincerely.
> > > 
> > > That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your
> > > character.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making amends part 
> > > > of an apology.  Even in our recent exchange I asked Robin how I could 
> > > > make amends for misunderstanding him about his turq post and Curtis 
> > > > exchange.  For me it is the making amends that is the sine qua non of 
> > > > an apology and this is where the cost comes in.  And of course the cost 
> > > > or amends is meant to address the actual consequences.  Such as a 
> > > > restitution of money in the case of a compulsive gambler who lost the 
> > > > family savings for example.  
> > > > 
> > > > But the first step is to offer
> > > > apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other person.  
> > > > Robin and I did not get to the second step last year.  And it seems 
> > > > we're not getting to it again.  But I've made my offer and stand by it.
> > > > 
> > > > As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing.  In those 
> > > > days many people went to confession every week.  Also I say it just in 
> > > > case I've hurt someone's feelings.  The better I know FFL people the 
> > > > more I'll dispense with that.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > From: authfriend 
> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19 AM
> > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S 
> > > > VALENTINE
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >   
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > > (snip)
> > > > > You and Robin seemed to be able to engage in some wonderful
> > > > > dialogue back then. And for the record, I DO think Curtis
> > > > > meant that from the BEGINNING, (I'm not bothering with the
> > > > > "outset" or the "onset", I'm not getting embroiled in the
> > > > > semantics of that)
> > > > 
> > > > Right, that's irrelevant. That was laughinggull's error, and
> > > > even if LG had been correct, it would have made no difference
> > > > to what Curtis said.
> > > > 
> > > > > that Robin was itching for some kind of fight with you.
> > > > > Curtis is arguing against this but I am not buying that
> > > > 
> > > > There are a number of reasons not to buy it, including
> > > > his insistence that it was "obvious" what he meant when
> > > > what was obvious was that what he said was at best
> > > > *ambiguous*.
> > > > 
> > > > Furthermore, he completely ignored the fact that Robin
> > > > was responding to an extremely

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808"  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
(snip)
> So somewhere, somehow, for some reason, you keep gravitating
> toward the opportunity to interact with him. Now either stop 
> whining and complaining or ignore him and all things 'him'
> totally.
> 
> Huh? No he doesn't.

She's right, salyavin. It's happened more than once.

> Curtis is often on here and he always actually
> brings something worth reading, unlike Robin who just
> seems to bring his mental health problems for an airing.

Robin has made many valuable contributions to FFL
when he isn't being harassed by those who find him
threatening.

> Like Judy, the guy is
> obsessed and it's fucking weird to watch.
> 
> I also can't imagine still being impressed with Robins
> empty cult.

Hard to be impressed by something you don't know
anything about.





> Is only lasting an hour at the mic something to be ashamed of then?
> Seems there is a lot of ego involved there
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
(snip)
> Take our last go around that seemed to fascinate you beyond
> any other point in my discussion with Robin,

I was fascinated by all of it, actually.

> that I was
> ACTUALLY referring to some irrelevant past relationship
> Robin had with Share before the whole post exchange we
> were discussing.

Right. That "irrelevant past relationship" that you
just spent a whole post making a huge (and thoroughly,
documentably disingenuous) deal of.

That is what you were referring to.

> Most obviously it had to do with his predisposition to
> enter this exchange with the unfriendly agenda of shocking
> her into facing the "reality" that is Robin approved.

It was not at all "obvious" that this is what you were
talking about, first of all, even if you're telling the
truth (which I do not believe you are).

Second, Robin entered this exchange with one of his ironic
posts, commenting on *Share's* extremely unfriendly
remarks about his posts to Barry and you. There was no
agenda to "shock" Share. In reply to her response, he
simply pointed out that it made no sense--as any of us
might have done, including you, if someone had responded
to something we had written with a post that was illogical.

You were and are attempting to perpetuate the "psychological
rape" smear from back in October of last year.

Your ridiculous overreaction when Robin pointed out that
his initial exchanges with Share had been extremely
friendly, your refusal to acknowledge any ambiguity in
what you had written, is the "tell" that you had gotten
caught.

> But you couldn't get off it.  You had to create a cockamamie
> theory of me being motivated to lie about my actual intended 
> meaning once I clarified it.

I stand by my "theory" that your "clarification" was a
walkback from having been caught out.

> It made no rational sense outside your imagination of my
> dark intentions.

You have the darkest of intentions vis-a-vis Robin. You
are determined to bring him down because he sees through
you. And you have no hesitation about using irrational
means to do so. The trains you manufacture and send off
into the wild blue yonder *need* to be derailed.

> It was weird.  And it was a derailment.  I could post 100
> more examples but it will all be the same in the end.
> 
> You cannot help this.  I am not sure about Robin yet.
> 
> But the point it derailed was about how Robin entered into
> the interaction with an unfriendly agenda.  That was my
> point that got lost in this idiotic word parsing based on
> your imagination that I would be motivated to LIE about
> something so stupid,rather than accept my correction of
> YOUR misunderstanding.

As I noted above, Robin "entered into the interaction" with
an ironic post commenting on *Share's* "unfriendly agenda."
There was nothing there to be derailed except your
deliberate misrepresentation.

And yes, you had plenty of motivation to lie about what
you meant when you got called on it. You thought you
could invoke that past "psychological rape" upset to
support your thesis about Robin's purportedly "unfriendly
agenda" with Share, except that you forgot (or hoped
others would have forgotten) that their initial
conversations--quite a few of them, until Share's
misunderstanding--were unquestionably very friendly.

> > > You cannot hold to different ideas in your mind together.
> > > Hint:One deals with his direct communication with someone
> > > and one is a general writing piece for people like me who
> > > enjoy them.
> > 
> > Robin was explicit that his analysis *excluded* the latter
> 
> And his analysis was wrong about that too, but I will address
> that to him.

His analysis *didn't deal with Barry's general writing
pieces*. There's nothing for you to address (nor any
"different ideas" for me to hold in my mind, since
there's only one relevant one).

In any case, I think you need to address all of it with
Barry, given that Barry has seen fit to helpfully confirm
Robin's analysis:

> > Barry:
> > "In fact, the less awareness of self I have,
> > the better the writing seems to flow. Self
> > 'gets in the way.'" 
> > 
> > Robin:
> > "...does not offer up any evidence of what
> > his own experience is of himself..."

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ravi Chivukula]

Man what hypocritical bullshit.

If it's Barry and Curtis it's all impartial, monotonous set of POV's, it's a 
rap, it's stream of consciousness, it's harmless likes and dislikes, just 
benign preferences.

If its others it's mindfuckery, it's unpleasant, unfriendly, unwelcome word 
flood, it's toxic energy directed at strangers, it's trollish behavior - even 
psychological rape's now approved by His Holiness.

A master of deception at work.


On Apr 8, 2013, at 7:40 AM, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:

> Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant choice of words 
> to sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's assumption that you are not 
> aligned with "reality" and his writing is going to jolt you into an ability 
> to face life in a Robin approved more real way.
> 
> I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how invasive this 
> unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end. Combined with the word 
> flooding it is quite unpleasant.
> 
> In my view it would be Robin who would owe the apology for acting in a way 
> that would make someone think this term was the best way to describe it.
> 
> And instead of taking the feedback of how far over the boundaries line he had 
> crossed...
> 
> she got and still gets the predictable pile on for feeling this way.
> 
> Note to Share: You will never be able to appease this unfriendly agenda no 
> matter what you say. It is s double bind where the "sincerity" of even an 
> unnecessary apology will be judged by them.
> 
> And again you will lose because that is how the formula works. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or
> > "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as
> > you have not apologized for calling Robin a
> > "psychological rapist."
> > 
> > In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step"
> > because you never took the first step. I'm virtually
> > positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin
> > as soon as you were to take the first step: he would
> > forgive you if you apologized sincerely.
> > 
> > That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your
> > character.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making amends part 
> > > of an apology.  Even in our recent exchange I asked Robin how I could 
> > > make amends for misunderstanding him about his turq post and Curtis 
> > > exchange.  For me it is the making amends that is the sine qua non of an 
> > > apology and this is where the cost comes in.  And of course the cost or 
> > > amends is meant to address the actual consequences.  Such as a 
> > > restitution of money in the case of a compulsive gambler who lost the 
> > > family savings for example.  
> > > 
> > > But the first step is to offer
> > > apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other person.  
> > > Robin and I did not get to the second step last year.  And it seems we're 
> > > not getting to it again.  But I've made my offer and stand by it.
> > > 
> > > As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing.  In those days 
> > > many people went to confession every week.  Also I say it just in case 
> > > I've hurt someone's feelings.  The better I know FFL people the more I'll 
> > > dispense with that.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > From: authfriend 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > > You and Robin seemed to be able to engage in some wonderful
> > > > dialogue back then. And for the record, I DO think Curtis
> > > > meant that from the BEGINNING, (I'm not bothering with the
> > > > "outset" or the "onset", I'm not getting embroiled in the
> > > > semantics of that)
> > > 
> > > Right, that's irrelevant. That was laughinggull's error, and
> > > even if LG had been correct, it would have made no difference
> > > to what Curtis said.
> > > 
> > > > that Robin was itching for some kind of fight with you.
> > > > Curtis is arguing against this but I am not buying that
> > > 
> > > There are a number of reasons not to buy it, including
> > > his insistence that it was "obvious" what he meant when
> > > what was obvious was that what he said was at best
> > > *ambiguous*.
> > > 
> > > Furthermore, he completely ignored the fact that Robin
> > > was responding to an extremely unfriendly post of Share's,
> > > in which she had accused him of being "sarcastic and
> > > accusatory when [Curtis] sounded reasonable." This was
> > > with reference to Robin's critique of Curtis's response
> > > to your post about Barry, Ann.
> > > 
> > > (snip)
> > > > I believe I have said this before to you, but not in q

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Bhairitu]

On 04/08/2013 10:57 AM, salyavin808 wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>>
>>
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
>> wrote:
>>> Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant choice of words 
>>> to sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's assumption that you are 
>>> not aligned with "reality" and his writing is going to jolt you into an 
>>> ability to face life in a Robin approved more real way.
>>>
>>> I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how invasive this 
>>> unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end.  Combined with the word 
>>> flooding it is quite unpleasant.
>> Neither of you have anything on my experience with Robin, not even close, 
>> not even in the same ballpark. Three and a half years around him physically 
>> up to 10-15 hours a day just puts my exposure to his "mindfuckery", his 
>> "word flooding" so far beyond your ability to even conceive of such a thing 
>> that it makes me smile, just a little. And boy, you think he can mess with 
>> you now, 30 years ago you would have lasted about an hour at the mic. And 
>> even during all that time I wouldn't have characterized it as 'psychological 
>> rape". I could and would and did call it lots of other things but never 
>> quite that. Still, you have the option to stop reading, stop responding but 
>> you don't. I noticed recently that when you have been absent for a while and 
>> Robin intermittently shows up so do you. So somewhere, somehow, for some 
>> reason, you keep gravitating toward the opportunity to interact with him. 
>> Now either stop whining and complaining or ignore him and all things 'him' 
>> totally.
>>
> Huh? No he doesn't. Curtis is often on here and he always actually
> brings something worth reading, unlike Robin who just seems to bring
> his mental health problems for an airing. Like Judy, the guy is
> obsessed and it's fucking weird to watch.
>
> I also can't imagine still being impressed with Robins empty cult.
> Is only lasting an hour at the mic something to be ashamed of then?
> Seems there is a lot of ego involved there

  Yeah, I can't believe the adolescent hoo-ha  gets the patients in the 
Funny Farm Lounge going.  Guess we need to up their meds. ;-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
>
> I find people who insist on getting apologies to be very 
> tiresome. It's s form of aggression. 

Exactly.

> In this case, it is not even the "wronged" person who is 
> insisting on it, but his self-appointed protector. 
> Authfriend reminds me of a mother hen protecting one of 
> her chicks, without noticing, apparently, that her "chick" 
> is a full-grown rooster who can and does out-crow anyone 
> on the block. 

For the record, the technical term for this type of person
is "fag hag." Contrary to popular belief, this term has 
nothing to do with whether the people being "protected" 
are gay or not, only that the self-appointed "protector" 
seeks to gain power and adulation from them by stepping in 
as their "savior" as often as humanly possible, thus 
demonstrating that they are unable to protect themselves.

Continuing in my usual subtle way to describe how I perceive
this whole tempest in a pisspot, I would describe the seem-
ingly neverending demand from some on this forum that others
APOLOGIZE as a form of Castaneda's "petty tyrant" behavior.
It's a power play. As you suggest, it's aggressive, and its
whole intent is to BE aggressive.

This particular petty tyrant scenario IN MY OPINION takes
two forms. The first (at least as it is acted out on this
forum) takes the form: "I don't like something (anything...
the particulars really don't matter) you said about me,
in this case you calling me a cunt when I was acting like
one. Therefore I invoke my God-given right to continue to
act like a cunt and harass you any way I can think of until 
you apologize publicly." 

The second form of petty tyrant behavior takes the form:
"I don't like something you said about someone else on 
this forum. I'm not *in the least* involved in this, but
because I don't like you, I'm *still* going to continue to
act like a cunt and harass you any way I can think of until 
you apologize publicly."

You can thank me for expressing the whole scenario this
succinctly and more accurately later. My work is done here.

There is a tremendous advantage in working a "day job" all
day and not being able (for the most part) to plow through 
all of this infantile FFL crap until I get home. Once I do
get home, after dealing with adults all day, I'm really not 
in a mood to pussyfoot around and pretend that what I
perceive as childish idiocy ISN'T childish idiocy. I call it 
like I see it. 

This is how I see it. Your mileage may vary, and if it does 
I really don't give a shit. 


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or
> > "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as
> > you have not apologized for calling Robin a
> > "psychological rapist."
> > 
> > In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step"
> > because you never took the first step. I'm virtually
> > positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin
> > as soon as you were to take the first step: he would
> > forgive you if you apologized sincerely.
> > 
> > That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your
> > character.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making amends part 
> > > of an apology.  Even in our recent exchange I asked Robin how I could 
> > > make amends for misunderstanding him about his turq post and Curtis 
> > > exchange.  For me it is the making amends that is the sine qua non of an 
> > > apology and this is where the cost comes in.  And of course the cost or 
> > > amends is meant to address the actual consequences.  Such as a 
> > > restitution of money in the case of a compulsive gambler who lost the 
> > > family savings for example.  
> > > 
> > > But the first step is to offer
> > >  apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other person.  
> > > Robin and I did not get to the second step last year.  And it seems 
> > > we're not getting to it again.  But I've made my offer and stand by it.
> > > 
> > > As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing.  In those 
> > > days many people went to confession every week.  Also I say it just in 
> > > case I've hurt someone's feelings.  The better I know FFL people the 
> > > more I'll dispense with that.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: authfriend 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE
> > >  
> > > 
> > >   
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > > You and Robin seemed to be able to engage in some wonderful
> > > > dialogue back then. And for the record, I DO think Curtis
> > > > meant that from the BEGINNING, (I'm not bothering with the
> > > > "outset" or the "onset", I'm not getting embroi

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant choice of words 
> > to sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's assumption that you are 
> > not aligned with "reality" and his writing is going to jolt you into an 
> > ability to face life in a Robin approved more real way.
> > 
> > I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how invasive this 
> > unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end.  Combined with the word 
> > flooding it is quite unpleasant.
> 
> Neither of you have anything on my experience with Robin, not even close, not 
> even in the same ballpark. Three and a half years around him physically up to 
> 10-15 hours a day just puts my exposure to his "mindfuckery", his "word 
> flooding" so far beyond your ability to even conceive of such a thing that it 
> makes me smile, just a little. And boy, you think he can mess with you now, 
> 30 years ago you would have lasted about an hour at the mic. And even during 
> all that time I wouldn't have characterized it as 'psychological rape". I 
> could and would and did call it lots of other things but never quite that. 
> Still, you have the option to stop reading, stop responding but you don't. I 
> noticed recently that when you have been absent for a while and Robin 
> intermittently shows up so do you. So somewhere, somehow, for some reason, 
> you keep gravitating toward the opportunity to interact with him. Now either 
> stop whining and complaining or ignore him and all things 'him' totally.
>

Huh? No he doesn't. Curtis is often on here and he always actually
brings something worth reading, unlike Robin who just seems to bring
his mental health problems for an airing. Like Judy, the guy is
obsessed and it's fucking weird to watch.

I also can't imagine still being impressed with Robins empty cult.
Is only lasting an hour at the mic something to be ashamed of then?
Seems there is a lot of ego involved there

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Iron Lady' Prime Minister, Dead at 87

[PaliGap]

Cher fans on Twitter were agitated apparently:
#nowthatchersdead 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-dead-worried-cher-1818681

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/International/margaret-thatcher-britains-iron-lady\
> -dead-87/story?id=13644011#.UWLN90oozDk
>  y-dead-87/story?id=13644011#.UWLN90oozDk>
> "It is with great sadness that Mark and Carol Thatcher announced that 
> their mother Baroness Thatcher died peacefully following a stroke this 
> morning,"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBEREJpOvNo
> 
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

You really needed that many words to express that?

Your postings here are not an interaction with other people.  It is all going 
on inside your own head.

I am under orders from Ann to ignore you now, but you apparently are free to 
rant away. Man you must have done a number on her up at that mic.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Dear Curtis,
> 
> I am going to pay tribute to you.
> 
> Your guile is so immaculate, so indefatigable, that the only final answer to 
> you is:
> 
> DO IT, CURTIS. DO IT. WE ARE JUST GOING TO WATCH.
> 
> In some way I'd almost say you are as inspired as Christ.
> 
> Your dishonesty is becoming one of the Ten Wonders of the universe.
> 
> There is no intelligence, no power, no love, no reason existing anywhere 
> which could ever cause to issue from you a tremor of humility.
> 
> I feel triumphant here--in a rather quiet and unusual way--in doing something 
> anti-climactic (you are rejuvenated after yesterday, right?): writing to you, 
> Curtis, to tell you your murderously conscientious determination to keep 
> bullshitting on this forum (when it comes to matters of interpersonal 
> truthfulness) can finally only be met by a simple: I will leave you alone.
> 
> Still, you will never answer those four posts from Saturday.
> 
> Your are hilarious in the seriousness with which you want to wound anyone who 
> decides to carry the truth forward in the teeth of your foul and perverse 
> opposition.
> 
> But there is a need for mercy here, because, it would seem, you are acting 
> the part you were cast to play.
> 
> In my senior Shakespeare course at university, we analyzed the characters in 
> his plays.
> 
> You are one character in a bigger play than Shakespeare ever imagined, Curtis.
> 
> You show us who you are. And you make Iago seem like a child. And you force 
> analysis by how you behave. [It you were a character in a Shakespeare play I 
> would look forward to writing an essay about what you reveal about who you 
> are in your actions. In this case, the stage is this forum.)
> 
> I respect your philosophy, Curtis; and your performance (at all times); but I 
> am more inspired to know you will never go out of character than I am certain 
> that God, as he once existed, has decided to leave what he created.
> 
> Had I not known what I knew before I met you, Curtis, I would have become 
> religious from reading how you argue here on FFL.
> 
> You don't quite get the same sensation in your heart when you lie as someone 
> who does not lie, but nevertheless it is a sensation that goes to the sublime.
> 
> You understand what I am saying here, Curtis: to oppose you is to draw out 
> the real person. Curtis. That person does not know even in his imagination 
> what it feels like to be someone who cannot help but let life form them, 
> alter them, make them, break them, exalt them.
> 
> You are seemingly self-made from the beginning, Curtis.
> 
> You have secured what seems to me to be an imperishable place in creation.
> 
> No one can see what you are doing, Curtis. Only you.
> 
> CURTIS'S ANSWER TO ROBIN'S RANT:
> 
> Curtis: Robin, no one is afraid of you anymore. You think you can lay down 
> your trip on others--but it ain't going to fly, Robin. We see through your 
> game. This torrent of abuse will not make true what is not true. You can't 
> have your way around here, Robin. I am not going to let you get away with it. 
> I have been honest and forthcoming from the beginning with you, Robin; but 
> you don't take criticism well--and I have yet to see you respond to the 
> intelligent feedback I keep giving you. Don't you see the irony of all this, 
> Robin? Those who are defending you have deprived themselves of the integrity 
> (they don't realize they have done this, mind you; their self-righteousness 
> tells us this) that I have decided will remain in my possession. You just 
> don't like it when people disagree with you, Robin.
> 
> And your four posts from yesterday: word flood gets it, Robin. There was 
> nothing there-I read through all of it carefully enough--for me to answer. 
> You were just having your own experience of yourself, imprisoned in your own 
> egotism--although I grant you: you don't think this is the case. But it is, 
> Robin.
> 
> Do you really believe you can win this thing, Robin? Those who come to my 
> defence here on FFL, to a person they are brave and sincere. You just are not 
> used to having an adversary who will not be intimidated, Robin. Robin, I wish 
> you could hear this. For all your pretensions of "objectification of first 
> person subjectivity" you fail to make the grade. Hardly anyone understands 
> you, Robin; and believe it or not, Barry's criticism of you which you 
> reposted below, it is felt deeply and passionately--by more persons than just 
> Barry.
> 
> Robin, you won't like this: But Barry's reaction to you says something real 
> about you.
> 
> I must stop here, Robin, else you will 

[FairfieldLife] Transcendental Music

[merlin]

Transcendental Music 




http://transcendentalmusic.org/?utm_source=Newsletter%2B&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Website%2BIntro%2BVideo&utm_campaign=April%2B2013

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Robin Carlsen]

Dear Curtis,

I am going to pay tribute to you.

Your guile is so immaculate, so indefatigable, that the only final answer to 
you is:

DO IT, CURTIS. DO IT. WE ARE JUST GOING TO WATCH.

In some way I'd almost say you are as inspired as Christ.

Your dishonesty is becoming one of the Ten Wonders of the universe.

There is no intelligence, no power, no love, no reason existing anywhere which 
could ever cause to issue from you a tremor of humility.

I feel triumphant here--in a rather quiet and unusual way--in doing something 
anti-climactic (you are rejuvenated after yesterday, right?): writing to you, 
Curtis, to tell you your murderously conscientious determination to keep 
bullshitting on this forum (when it comes to matters of interpersonal 
truthfulness) can finally only be met by a simple: I will leave you alone.

Still, you will never answer those four posts from Saturday.

Your are hilarious in the seriousness with which you want to wound anyone who 
decides to carry the truth forward in the teeth of your foul and perverse 
opposition.

But there is a need for mercy here, because, it would seem, you are acting the 
part you were cast to play.

In my senior Shakespeare course at university, we analyzed the characters in 
his plays.

You are one character in a bigger play than Shakespeare ever imagined, Curtis.

You show us who you are. And you make Iago seem like a child. And you force 
analysis by how you behave. [It you were a character in a Shakespeare play I 
would look forward to writing an essay about what you reveal about who you are 
in your actions. In this case, the stage is this forum.)

I respect your philosophy, Curtis; and your performance (at all times); but I 
am more inspired to know you will never go out of character than I am certain 
that God, as he once existed, has decided to leave what he created.

Had I not known what I knew before I met you, Curtis, I would have become 
religious from reading how you argue here on FFL.

You don't quite get the same sensation in your heart when you lie as someone 
who does not lie, but nevertheless it is a sensation that goes to the sublime.

You understand what I am saying here, Curtis: to oppose you is to draw out the 
real person. Curtis. That person does not know even in his imagination what it 
feels like to be someone who cannot help but let life form them, alter them, 
make them, break them, exalt them.

You are seemingly self-made from the beginning, Curtis.

You have secured what seems to me to be an imperishable place in creation.

No one can see what you are doing, Curtis. Only you.

CURTIS'S ANSWER TO ROBIN'S RANT:

Curtis: Robin, no one is afraid of you anymore. You think you can lay down your 
trip on others--but it ain't going to fly, Robin. We see through your game. 
This torrent of abuse will not make true what is not true. You can't have your 
way around here, Robin. I am not going to let you get away with it. I have been 
honest and forthcoming from the beginning with you, Robin; but you don't take 
criticism well--and I have yet to see you respond to the intelligent feedback I 
keep giving you. Don't you see the irony of all this, Robin? Those who are 
defending you have deprived themselves of the integrity (they don't realize 
they have done this, mind you; their self-righteousness tells us this) that I 
have decided will remain in my possession. You just don't like it when people 
disagree with you, Robin.

And your four posts from yesterday: word flood gets it, Robin. There was 
nothing there-I read through all of it carefully enough--for me to answer. You 
were just having your own experience of yourself, imprisoned in your own 
egotism--although I grant you: you don't think this is the case. But it is, 
Robin.

Do you really believe you can win this thing, Robin? Those who come to my 
defence here on FFL, to a person they are brave and sincere. You just are not 
used to having an adversary who will not be intimidated, Robin. Robin, I wish 
you could hear this. For all your pretensions of "objectification of first 
person subjectivity" you fail to make the grade. Hardly anyone understands you, 
Robin; and believe it or not, Barry's criticism of you which you reposted 
below, it is felt deeply and passionately--by more persons than just Barry.

Robin, you won't like this: But Barry's reaction to you says something real 
about you.

I must stop here, Robin, else you will accuse me of what you do almost all the 
time: word flood.

I think the most gracious thing I can say to you, Robin is: You are flawed, you 
are eccentric, you are very blind, you are very arrogant, and you are--I mean 
this, Robin, my friend--almost pathetic.

I don't really respect either your intelligence or your philosophy.

You need a wake-up call, Robin. I am trying to give that to you.

I expect you just to say: "You are lying here, Curtis. You don't really believe 
any of this".

There. I said it for you, Robin. And you are wrong.

And I have jus

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
(snip)
> I wrote two posts documenting in detail Share's amazing
> progression from not suffering or feeling insulted to
> believing she had been the victim of "psychological rape."
> I'll dig them up if necessary.

Here's one of them, from October 2 of last year:

-
Having read all the relevant posts, I am utterly baffled
and appalled at Share's use of this term ["psychological
rape"] to describe her interactions with Robin. I'd be
very curious to know where she got it from. Did someone
suggest it to her?

This is such a serious charge, it's really important to
review some of the background.

In her post today, Share writes:

"Just for the record, this is exactly why I got so upset
initially with Robin about the Russian flash mob post.
Being psychologically raped didn't feel good then just
as it doesn't feel good now."

Here is Share's initial comment to Robin about his
reaction to her remarks about the flash mob video
(September 4):

"Yes I will excuse your presumption if you excuse my not going
down this particular rabbit hole againSo no problemo. Sigh,
btw, I notice I'm feeling grumpy this morning. Blaming it on
the sugar I ate yesterday. Somehow I've become very sensitive
to sugar. Anyway, Robin, apologies for taking it out on you."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319178

And here is what she wrote to Robin on September 9
concerning this interaction:

"As for what my feelings were, I didn't suffer or feel
insulted. Nor did I think you were being hurtful or cruel.
I simply did not want to pursue the theme of whether or not
I was being the real me. Nor the theme of my alleged hyper
positivity."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319500

So at the time that it happened, Share felt a little
grumpy and apologized to Robin.

Four days later, Share affirmed that she had not been
insulted, did not suffer, did not think Robin was being
hurtful or cruel. [This was the point at which Curtis
jumped in.--JS 4/8/13]

Today, four weeks later, it was "psychological rape."

Something isn't right here. Somehow Share has become
convinced that what at the time had caused no more
than a little grumpiness on her part (which she
attribted to eating sugar anyway) was a terrible act
of emotional violation equivalent to rape.

(She had completely misinterpreted Robin's remarks
in any case, and he had practically stood on his head
explaining himself in the kindest possible manner.)

The charge was made in public about an FFL member. I
think we need an explanation. What, or who, caused
Share to change her mind so drastically?


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/321696

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Share Long]

Thanks Curtis and feste for weighing in on all this.  I'm aiming to avoid 
anything to do with last year's upset between me and Robin unless HE wants to 
discuss it offline.  I have no desire to subject other FFL posters to all that 
again.  As for the current upset, I've apologized and offered to make amends so 
I think the next step is Robin's.  





 From: curtisdeltablues 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 9:40 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE
 

  
Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant choice of words to 
sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's assumption that you are not 
aligned with "reality" and his writing is going to jolt you into an ability to 
face life in a Robin approved more real way.

I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how invasive this 
unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end.  Combined with the word 
flooding it is quite unpleasant.

In my view it would be Robin who would owe the apology for acting in a way that 
would make someone think this term was the best way to describe it.

And instead of taking the feedback of how far over the boundaries line he had 
crossed...

she got and still gets the predictable pile on for feeling this way.

Note to Share:  You will never be able to appease this unfriendly agenda no 
matter what you say.  It is s double bind where the "sincerity" of even an 
unnecessary apology will be judged by them.

And again you will lose because that is how the formula works. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or
> "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as
> you have not apologized for calling Robin a
> "psychological rapist."
> 
> In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step"
> because you never took the first step. I'm virtually
> positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin
> as soon as you were to take the first step: he would
> forgive you if you apologized sincerely.
> 
> That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your
> character.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making amends part of 
> > an apology.  Even in our recent exchange I asked Robin how I could make 
> > amends for misunderstanding him about his turq post and Curtis exchange.  
> > For me it is the making amends that is the sine qua non of an apology and 
> > this is where the cost comes in.  And of course the cost or amends is 
> > meant to address the actual consequences.  Such as a restitution of money 
> > in the case of a compulsive gambler who lost the family savings for 
> > example.  
> > 
> > But the first step is to offer
> >  apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other person.  
> > Robin and I did not get to the second step last year.  And it seems we're 
> > not getting to it again.  But I've made my offer and stand by it.
> > 
> > As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing.  In those days 
> > many people went to confession every week.  Also I say it just in case 
> > I've hurt someone's feelings.  The better I know FFL people the more I'll 
> > dispense with that.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: authfriend 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > You and Robin seemed to be able to engage in some wonderful
> > > dialogue back then. And for the record, I DO think Curtis
> > > meant that from the BEGINNING, (I'm not bothering with the
> > > "outset" or the "onset", I'm not getting embroiled in the
> > > semantics of that)
> > 
> > Right, that's irrelevant. That was laughinggull's error, and
> > even if LG had been correct, it would have made no difference
> > to what Curtis said.
> > 
> > > that Robin was itching for some kind of fight with you.
> > > Curtis is arguing against this but I am not buying that
> > 
> > There are a number of reasons not to buy it, including
> > his insistence that it was "obvious" what he meant when
> > what was obvious was that what he said was at best
> > *ambiguous*.
> > 
> > Furthermore, he completely ignored the fact that Robin
> > was responding to an extremely unfriendly post of Share's,
> > in which she had accused him of being "sarcastic and
> > accusatory when [Curtis] sounded reasonable." This was
> > with reference to Robin's critique of Curtis's response
> > to your post about Barry, Ann.
> > 
> > (snip)
> > > I believe I have said this before to you, but not in quite
> > > the same way; apologizing can be a means of avoidance. It
> > > can appear so generalized, so non-specific that it

Re: [FairfieldLife] Shocking Bikram Sex Scandal Should Shock No One - The Daily Beast

[Michael Jackson]

This is no scandal - he has gone on record saying he has sex with his students 
- he claimed that sometimes gurus have to cuz the students threaten to kill 
themselves or make false allegations if the guru doesn't accede to the students 
demands - that's what he said.





 From: Rick Archer 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 11:44 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Shocking Bikram Sex Scandal Should Shock No One - The 
Daily Beast
 

  
http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/articles/2013/04/06/shocking-bikram-sex-scandal-should-shock-no-one.html
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant
> choice of words to sum up how it feels to be the focus of
> Robin's assumption that you are not aligned with "reality"
> and his writing is going to jolt you into an ability to face
> life in a Robin approved more real way.

No, Curtis, that isn't what happened. To start with, this
was a minor conflict between Share and Robin--due to a
misunderstanding by Share of something quite innocuous
that Robin had said--a conflict which *you did your
damndest to exacerbate*.

Here's what Share said at the time to Robin:

"As for what my feelings were, I didn't suffer or feel
insulted. Nor did I think you were being hurtful or cruel.
I simply did not want to pursue the theme of whether or
not I was being the real me. Nor the theme of my alleged
hyper positivity. We've been down those rabbit holes
plenty."

This reflected her *misunderstanding* of what Robin had
said. He had practically turned himself inside-out
trying to explain to her what he had really meant and
apologizing profusely *himself* for not having been clear.

But notice that she "didn't suffer or feel insulted."

That was when you, Curtis, jumped in and started the
process of trying to convince her she had something
major to complain about, which ultimately--*a month
later*--culminated in her "psychological rape" accusation.

*A month later*. Not "when this first came up." It took
quite a bit of time to talk her into making that
"flamboyant" accusation.

This accusation, Curtis, *was your doing*. I believe you
had some help from LordKnows as well, behind the scenes,
in your project of getting Share to smear Robin for
something that she initially hadn't been that bothered by.

And now you're doing your best to perpetuate the smear.

This is, of course, what you were referring to when you
claimed Robin had had an "unfriendly" agenda with Share
"from the outset," your disingenuous denials notwithstanding.

I wrote two posts documenting in detail Share's amazing
progression from not suffering or feeling insulted to
believing she had been the victim of "psychological rape."
I'll dig them up if necessary.

Now read Curtis's version of what happened, bearing in mind
the *facts* I outlined above. His dishonesty is appalling:


> I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how invasive this 
> unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end.  Combined with the word 
> flooding it is quite unpleasant.
> 
> In my view it would be Robin who would owe the apology for acting in a way 
> that would make someone think this term was the best way to describe it.
> 
> And instead of taking the feedback of how far over the boundaries line he had 
> crossed...
> 
> she got and still gets the predictable pile on for feeling this way.
> 
> Note to Share:  You will never be able to appease this unfriendly agenda no 
> matter what you say.  It is s double bind where the "sincerity" of even an 
> unnecessary apology will be judged by them.
> 
> And again you will lose because that is how the formula works.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or
> > "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as
> > you have not apologized for calling Robin a
> > "psychological rapist."
> > 
> > In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step"
> > because you never took the first step. I'm virtually
> > positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin
> > as soon as you were to take the first step: he would
> > forgive you if you apologized sincerely.
> > 
> > That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your
> > character.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making amends part 
> > > of an apology.  Even in our recent exchange I asked Robin how I could 
> > > make amends for misunderstanding him about his turq post and Curtis 
> > > exchange.  For me it is the making amends that is the sine qua non of an 
> > > apology and this is where the cost comes in.  And of course the cost or 
> > > amends is meant to address the actual consequences.  Such as a 
> > > restitution of money in the case of a compulsive gambler who lost the 
> > > family savings for example.  
> > > 
> > > But the first step is to offer
> > >  apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other person.  
> > > Robin and I did not get to the second step last year.  And it seems 
> > > we're not getting to it again.  But I've made my offer and stand by it.
> > > 
> > > As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing.  In those 
> > > days many people went to confession every week.  Also I say it just in 
> > > case I've hurt someone's feelings.  The better I know FFL people the 
> > > more I'll dispense with that.
> > > 
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant choice of words 
> > to sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's assumption that you are 
> > not aligned with "reality" and his writing is going to jolt you into an 
> > ability to face life in a Robin approved more real way.
> > 
> > I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how invasive this 
> > unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end.  Combined with the word 
> > flooding it is quite unpleasant.
> 
> Neither of you have anything on my experience with Robin, not even close, not 
> even in the same ballpark. Three and a half years around him physically up to 
> 10-15 hours a day just puts my exposure to his "mindfuckery", his "word 
> flooding" so far beyond your ability to even conceive of such a thing that it 
> makes me smile, just a little. And boy, you think he can mess with you now, 
> 30 years ago you would have lasted about an hour at the mic. And even during 
> all that time I wouldn't have characterized it as 'psychological rape". I 
> could and would and did call it lots of other things but never quite that. >

And you are welcome to your opinion of how he acted in person as I am to mine 
about how he shows up here.




That seems kind of funny charge sine Robin is complaining that I am not 
responding to his 3 part word flood posts.

< I noticed recently that when you have been absent for a while and Robin 
intermittently shows up so do you. So somewhere, somehow, for some reason, you 
keep gravitating toward the opportunity to interact with him.>

Yes we often choose to interact here. So your point is?

< Now either stop whining and complaining or ignore him and all things 'him' 
totally.>

Oh, characterizing my interaction with him as "whining and complaining" is such 
an unfriendly judgement.  Does that apply only to me?  Does it apply to Judy's 
part in the interaction?  Should everyone here just ignore each other and let 
you have the board to yourself? Sorry you find my opinions here inconvenient.  
I suggest you should perhaps take your own advice in regards to my interactions 
with other posters here.  And stop your whining and complaining about how I 
choose to post here. 







> > 
> > In my view it would be Robin who would owe the apology for acting in a way 
> > that would make someone think this term was the best way to describe it.
> > 
> > And instead of taking the feedback of how far over the boundaries line he 
> > had crossed...
> > 
> > she got and still gets the predictable pile on for feeling this way.
> > 
> > Note to Share:  You will never be able to appease this unfriendly agenda no 
> > matter what you say.  It is s double bind where the "sincerity" of even an 
> > unnecessary apology will be judged by them.
> > 
> > And again you will lose because that is how the formula works.  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or
> > > "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as
> > > you have not apologized for calling Robin a
> > > "psychological rapist."
> > > 
> > > In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step"
> > > because you never took the first step. I'm virtually
> > > positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin
> > > as soon as you were to take the first step: he would
> > > forgive you if you apologized sincerely.
> > > 
> > > That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your
> > > character.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making amends part 
> > > > of an apology.  Even in our recent exchange I asked Robin how I could 
> > > > make amends for misunderstanding him about his turq post and Curtis 
> > > > exchange.  For me it is the making amends that is the sine qua non of 
> > > > an apology and this is where the cost comes in.  And of course the 
> > > > cost or amends is meant to address the actual consequences.  Such as a 
> > > > restitution of money in the case of a compulsive gambler who lost the 
> > > > family savings for example.  
> > > > 
> > > > But the first step is to offer
> > > >  apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other person.  
> > > > Robin and I did not get to the second step last year.  And it seems 
> > > > we're not getting to it again.  But I've made my offer and stand by it.
> > > > 
> > > > As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing.  In those 
> > > > days many people went to confession every week.  Also I say it just in 
> > > > case I've hurt someone's feelings.  The better I know FFL people the 
> > > > more I'll dispense with that.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > _

[FairfieldLife] Mercedes Kirkel: New Interview on Buddha at the Gas Pump - 04/08/2013

[Rick Archer]

 


blog updates from


Buddha at the Gas Pump


   


published 04/08/2013


168. Mercedes Kirkel 

 

Apr 07, 2013 08:09 am | Rick

Mercedes Kirkel is an author and channel for Mary Magdalene and other beings of 
light. In July of 2010, Mary Magdalene began coming to Mercedes daily, giving 
extraordinary messages for humanity’s evolution and spiritual growth. That was 
the birth of … Continue reading  

 →

The post 168. Mercedes Kirkel 

  appeared first on Buddha at the Gas Pump 

 .

   
168_mercedes_kirkel.mp3 

  60.1 MB

comments 

  | read more 

 

 





 

   
Elsewhere

*  

 Visit My Blog

*  

 Share This with a friend

*  

 Follow me on Twitter

*  

 RSS feed

   


view email in a browser 

  | 


Regular announcement of new interviews posted at http://batgap.com.

Buddha at the Gas Pump

1108 South B Street

Fairfield, Iowa 52556


Add us to your address book 

 

Copyright (C) 2013 Buddha at the Gas Pump All rights reserved.

 

 

  

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

Is it disturbing that fragile world peace vibe you guys are cranking out in the 
cornfields?  As much as one kid taking a bong hit?  It makes me wonder if your 
good vibes are really gunna reach that 1950's looking kid dictator in North 
Korea if you don't have the dharana chops to focus on what works for you here 
and ignore the rest. 

I always thought peace started with the individual, but now I see that it takes 
a village to maintain a mood...I mean peace.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> Thanks Curtis,
> Good summary post. 
> I didn't have time to read all these posts last week.
> I appreciate the cut to the chase.
> Except for a pile on which may come, Is this argument about over?
> Best Regards,
> -Buck in Fairfield
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > snip
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of
> > > > > the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the
> > > > > least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality
> > > > > Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic
> > > > > to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read
> > > > > and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is
> > > > > that people would have to shower less if they just
> > > > > ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and
> > > > > pristine snow he is.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [Barry about Robin--from yesterday)
> > > > > 
> > > > > CURTIS:
> > > > > 
> > > > > In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that 
> > > > > I am referring only to his 
> > > > > "intensely opinionated posts"--not, for example, to the posts he just 
> > > > > wrote from Paris.
> > 
> > But you are wrong about them too.  It is YOUR lack of ability to see his 
> > internal processes in them.  If anything it comes through more simply in 
> > those.  He comes across much more complexly in his less focused posts. 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > But you knew this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my 
> > > > > analysis of him.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is his "freak of nature" persona [AWB], not his fluent and 
> > > > > engaging travelogues--or even movie reviews.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But you knew this.
> > 
> > Can't you just see that in some posts he is peevishly dismissing things 
> > that annoy him. You are reading too much into it because some of them are 
> > focused on you.  But even the infamous C posts were completely 
> > comprehensible in terms of his POV and thinking process.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a 
> > > > > comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are 
> > > > > specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my 
> > > > > analysis of him. They are not.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the 
> > > > > discerning FFL reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE THE PLACE OF A REAL 
> > > > > RESPONSE TO THOSE FOUR POSTS TO YOU OF YESTERDAY (where I did say 
> > > > > everything I could want to say) is an extraordinary thing. You have, 
> > > > > I must assume, answered my four posts by this post. This certainly is 
> > > > > WHAT YOU WANT THIS POST TO DO FOR YOU.
> > 
> > Don't you EVER get tired of attempting this kind of mindfuck Robin.  
> > Seriously, it is so lame.  What I want this post to do is to express ideas 
> > I am interested in expressing.
> > 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think it may very well work in the majority of those FFL readers 
> > > > > who come upon this; especially right after reading Barry's posts from 
> > > > > Paris of today.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Paris is not The Stupid Cunt category. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Stream of consciousness? That has nothing whatsoever to do with my 
> > > > > analysis, Curtis
> > 
> > 
> > It has to do with mine.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > "In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your 
> > > > > experience of yourself. That is what is killing your ability to 
> > > > > perceive others beyond your internal cartoon images of them. Carried 
> > > > > away by your internal experience, you fill the page with observations 
> > > > > that only apply to your internal world."
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is the most ludicrous and dishonest and absurd thing you have 
> > > > > ever said about me, Curtis.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Each word is a lie--and the entire meaning of this, it has no 
> > > > > application, for example, to my four posts I wrote to you yesterday.>
> > 
> > 
> > Actually it does but you will never hear it.  I know that now.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > You are the most beautiful liar I know, Curtis.>
> > 
> > 
> > Mindfuckery statement.  Did this used to work for you in the old days with 
> > youn

[FairfieldLife] Shocking Bikram Sex Scandal Should Shock No One - The Daily Beast

[Rick Archer]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/articles/2013/04/06/shocking-bikram-sex-sc
andal-should-shock-no-one.html 

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant choice of words 
> to sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's assumption that you are not 
> aligned with "reality" and his writing is going to jolt you into an ability 
> to face life in a Robin approved more real way.
> 
> I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how invasive this 
> unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end.  Combined with the word 
> flooding it is quite unpleasant.

Neither of you have anything on my experience with Robin, not even close, not 
even in the same ballpark. Three and a half years around him physically up to 
10-15 hours a day just puts my exposure to his "mindfuckery", his "word 
flooding" so far beyond your ability to even conceive of such a thing that it 
makes me smile, just a little. And boy, you think he can mess with you now, 30 
years ago you would have lasted about an hour at the mic. And even during all 
that time I wouldn't have characterized it as 'psychological rape". I could and 
would and did call it lots of other things but never quite that. Still, you 
have the option to stop reading, stop responding but you don't. I noticed 
recently that when you have been absent for a while and Robin intermittently 
shows up so do you. So somewhere, somehow, for some reason, you keep 
gravitating toward the opportunity to interact with him. Now either stop 
whining and complaining or ignore him and all things 'him' totally.
> 
> In my view it would be Robin who would owe the apology for acting in a way 
> that would make someone think this term was the best way to describe it.
> 
> And instead of taking the feedback of how far over the boundaries line he had 
> crossed...
> 
> she got and still gets the predictable pile on for feeling this way.
> 
> Note to Share:  You will never be able to appease this unfriendly agenda no 
> matter what you say.  It is s double bind where the "sincerity" of even an 
> unnecessary apology will be judged by them.
> 
> And again you will lose because that is how the formula works.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or
> > "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as
> > you have not apologized for calling Robin a
> > "psychological rapist."
> > 
> > In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step"
> > because you never took the first step. I'm virtually
> > positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin
> > as soon as you were to take the first step: he would
> > forgive you if you apologized sincerely.
> > 
> > That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your
> > character.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making amends part 
> > > of an apology.  Even in our recent exchange I asked Robin how I could 
> > > make amends for misunderstanding him about his turq post and Curtis 
> > > exchange.  For me it is the making amends that is the sine qua non of an 
> > > apology and this is where the cost comes in.  And of course the cost or 
> > > amends is meant to address the actual consequences.  Such as a 
> > > restitution of money in the case of a compulsive gambler who lost the 
> > > family savings for example.  
> > > 
> > > But the first step is to offer
> > >  apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other person.  
> > > Robin and I did not get to the second step last year.  And it seems 
> > > we're not getting to it again.  But I've made my offer and stand by it.
> > > 
> > > As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing.  In those 
> > > days many people went to confession every week.  Also I say it just in 
> > > case I've hurt someone's feelings.  The better I know FFL people the 
> > > more I'll dispense with that.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: authfriend 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE
> > >  
> > > 
> > >   
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > > You and Robin seemed to be able to engage in some wonderful
> > > > dialogue back then. And for the record, I DO think Curtis
> > > > meant that from the BEGINNING, (I'm not bothering with the
> > > > "outset" or the "onset", I'm not getting embroiled in the
> > > > semantics of that)
> > > 
> > > Right, that's irrelevant. That was laughinggull's error, and
> > > even if LG had been correct, it would have made no difference
> > > to what Curtis said.
> > > 
> > > > that Robin was itching for some kind of fight with you.
> > > > Curtis is arguing against this but I am not buying that
> > > 
> > > There are a number of reasons no

[FairfieldLife] Shocking Bikram Sex Scandal Should Shock No One - The Daily Beast

[Rick Archer]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/articles/2013/04/06/shocking-bikram-sex-sc
andal-should-shock-no-one.html 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> snip> > 
> > > The rest of the piece just amplifies this impression.  You
> > > believe only a word flood can answer a word flood, I do not.
> > 
> > You know, Curtis, the dismissively loaded phrase "word flood"
> > may have had some impact the first time you used it, but it
> > doesn't wear too well with constant repetition. About all it
> > conveys now is that you're at a loss to deal with detailed
> > reasoning.>
> 
> You know what wears even less well?  Getting word flooded by a person who 
> refuses to ever edit his writing to fit into a remotely normal person's 
> ability to interact here.

Who are we talking about here, Barry or Robin?
> 
> And you as a professional editor should know better.  I am calling it as I 
> see it.  A tactic of wearing someone down with an unrealistically long flood 
> of words.  Eventually he posts 3 more than I could be reasonably expected to 
> answer, and this is called to attention by both of you.  Winning through 
> attrition in a game I am not playing.
> 
> You are a bit of a word flooder but not even in the same league as Robin. 
> With you the righting is tight but it extends longer and longer because you 
> never get enough of the specific interaction even after the person had made 
> their points and is done. If you walked a few posts in my shoes you might be 
> more sympathetic.  It is a sensation of drowning in too much unedited ideas 
> that could never be answered because they grow exponentially with each post.  
> Only you two do this here.  But you have never gone head to head with Robin 
> in the way that I have so your charge of my being unable to deal with 
> "detailed reasoning" is crap.
> 
> > 
> > If you had understood what Robin wrote, you could have made
> > an appropriate succinct comment. The one you did make about
> > "stream of consciousness" was irrelevant.
> 
> Not to me or the actual author of the post in question, Barry.  We both 
> thought it was a good description of how he posts, and the absurdity to claim 
> that he doesn't reveal himself in some unique way that only Robin can detect.
> 
> > 
> > > > Too bad you didn't think of this ploy the first time you
> > > > tried to argue against the post. Then, according to you,
> > > > Robin couldn't see Barry's experience of himself in his
> > > > posts because Barry isn't open to being vulnerable to
> > > > people he doesn't like.
> > > 
> > > That was also true and reveals a common cognitive problem
> > > you have.
> > 
> > (snicker) Right, Curtis. It's my cognitive problem that I am
> > able to spot your inconsistencies.
> 
> I am playing to the balcony here. I know you will absorb nothing of this.  
> Your framing this behavior this way prevents it.
> 
> Since I have interacted with you on an Internet forum this is your most 
> maddening trait.  You gut hung up on something that has no relation to the 
> whole, and the meaning of the post gets derailed.  I used to think it was 
> deliberate but now believe that you really can't help yourself.  This is how 
> you experience the world.
> 
> Take our last go around that seemed to fascinate you beyond any other point 
> in my discussion with Robin, that I was ACTUALLY referring to some irrelevant 
> past relationship Robin had with Share before the whole post exchange we were 
> discussing.  Most obviously it had to do with his predisposition to enter 
> this exchange with the unfriendly agenda of shocking her into facing the 
> "reality" that is Robin approved.
> 
> But you couldn't get off it.  You had to create a cockamamie theory of me 
> being motivated to lie about my actual intended meaning once I clarified it.
> 
> It made no rational sense outside your imagination of my dark intentions.  It 
> was weird.  And it was a derailment.  I could post 100 more examples but it 
> will all be the same in the end.
> 
> You cannot help this.  I am not sure about Robin yet.
> 
> But the point it derailed was about how Robin entered into the interaction 
> with an unfriendly agenda.  That was my point that got lost in this idiotic 
> word parsing based on your imagination that I would be motivated to LIE about 
> something so stupid,rather than accept my correction of YOUR misunderstanding.
> 
> > 
> > > You cannot hold to different ideas in your mind together.
> > > Hint:One deals with his direct communication with someone
> > > and one is a general writing piece for people like me who
> > > enjoy them.
> > 
> > Robin was explicit that his analysis *excluded* the latter
> 
> And his analysis was wrong about that too, but I will address that to him.
> 
> > 
> > > > Neither attempted refutation has much of anything to do
> > > > with Robin's actual analysis, which is considerably more
> > > > subtle and complex than you've been able to grasp (or at
> > > > least wanted anybody else to grasp).
> > > 
> > > Jesus Robi

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> Thanks Curtis,
> Good summary post. 
> I didn't have time to read all these posts last week.
> I appreciate the cut to the chase.
> Except for a pile on which may come, Is this argument about over?
> Best Regards,
> -Buck in Fairfield

Dear Buck in Fairfield. Does "pile on" refer to more than one person engaging 
in conversation on the same subject?
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > snip
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of
> > > > > the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the
> > > > > least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality
> > > > > Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic
> > > > > to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read
> > > > > and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is
> > > > > that people would have to shower less if they just
> > > > > ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and
> > > > > pristine snow he is.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [Barry about Robin--from yesterday)
> > > > > 
> > > > > CURTIS:
> > > > > 
> > > > > In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that 
> > > > > I am referring only to his 
> > > > > "intensely opinionated posts"--not, for example, to the posts he just 
> > > > > wrote from Paris.
> > 
> > But you are wrong about them too.  It is YOUR lack of ability to see his 
> > internal processes in them.  If anything it comes through more simply in 
> > those.  He comes across much more complexly in his less focused posts. 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > But you knew this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my 
> > > > > analysis of him.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is his "freak of nature" persona [AWB], not his fluent and 
> > > > > engaging travelogues--or even movie reviews.
> > > > > 
> > > > > But you knew this.
> > 
> > Can't you just see that in some posts he is peevishly dismissing things 
> > that annoy him. You are reading too much into it because some of them are 
> > focused on you.  But even the infamous C posts were completely 
> > comprehensible in terms of his POV and thinking process.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a 
> > > > > comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are 
> > > > > specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my 
> > > > > analysis of him. They are not.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the 
> > > > > discerning FFL reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE THE PLACE OF A REAL 
> > > > > RESPONSE TO THOSE FOUR POSTS TO YOU OF YESTERDAY (where I did say 
> > > > > everything I could want to say) is an extraordinary thing. You have, 
> > > > > I must assume, answered my four posts by this post. This certainly is 
> > > > > WHAT YOU WANT THIS POST TO DO FOR YOU.
> > 
> > Don't you EVER get tired of attempting this kind of mindfuck Robin.  
> > Seriously, it is so lame.  What I want this post to do is to express ideas 
> > I am interested in expressing.
> > 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think it may very well work in the majority of those FFL readers 
> > > > > who come upon this; especially right after reading Barry's posts from 
> > > > > Paris of today.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Paris is not The Stupid Cunt category. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Stream of consciousness? That has nothing whatsoever to do with my 
> > > > > analysis, Curtis
> > 
> > 
> > It has to do with mine.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > "In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your 
> > > > > experience of yourself. That is what is killing your ability to 
> > > > > perceive others beyond your internal cartoon images of them. Carried 
> > > > > away by your internal experience, you fill the page with observations 
> > > > > that only apply to your internal world."
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is the most ludicrous and dishonest and absurd thing you have 
> > > > > ever said about me, Curtis.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Each word is a lie--and the entire meaning of this, it has no 
> > > > > application, for example, to my four posts I wrote to you yesterday.>
> > 
> > 
> > Actually it does but you will never hear it.  I know that now.
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > You are the most beautiful liar I know, Curtis.>
> > 
> > 
> > Mindfuckery statement.  Did this used to work for you in the old days with 
> > younger minds?
> > 
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I suppose I should, just for purposes of not excluding any 
> > > > > possibility, hold before me the notion that this last paragraph is 
> > > > > the performance of irony which exceeds anything we have read on FFL. 
> > > > > If it is this--and from some perspective I think it could be argued 
> > > > > t

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
>
> I find people who insist on getting apologies to be very tiresome. It's s 
> form of aggression. In this case, it is not even the "wronged" person who is 
> insisting on it, but his self-appointed protector. Authfriend reminds me of a 
> mother hen protecting one of her chicks, without noticing, apparently, that 
> her "chick" is a full-grown rooster who can and does out-crow anyone on the 
> block. 

I am not sure "apology" and "aggression" are related. Is MAKING an apology a 
form of aggression or just HOPING for one (theoretically speaking)?
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or
> > "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as
> > you have not apologized for calling Robin a
> > "psychological rapist."
> > 
> > In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step"
> > because you never took the first step. I'm virtually
> > positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin
> > as soon as you were to take the first step: he would
> > forgive you if you apologized sincerely.
> > 
> > That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your
> > character.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> > >
> > > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making amends part 
> > > of an apology.  Even in our recent exchange I asked Robin how I could 
> > > make amends for misunderstanding him about his turq post and Curtis 
> > > exchange.  For me it is the making amends that is the sine qua non of an 
> > > apology and this is where the cost comes in.  And of course the cost or 
> > > amends is meant to address the actual consequences.  Such as a 
> > > restitution of money in the case of a compulsive gambler who lost the 
> > > family savings for example.  
> > > 
> > > But the first step is to offer
> > >  apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other person.  
> > > Robin and I did not get to the second step last year.  And it seems 
> > > we're not getting to it again.  But I've made my offer and stand by it.
> > > 
> > > As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing.  In those 
> > > days many people went to confession every week.  Also I say it just in 
> > > case I've hurt someone's feelings.  The better I know FFL people the 
> > > more I'll dispense with that.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  From: authfriend 
> > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19 AM
> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE
> > >  
> > > 
> > >   
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > > You and Robin seemed to be able to engage in some wonderful
> > > > dialogue back then. And for the record, I DO think Curtis
> > > > meant that from the BEGINNING, (I'm not bothering with the
> > > > "outset" or the "onset", I'm not getting embroiled in the
> > > > semantics of that)
> > > 
> > > Right, that's irrelevant. That was laughinggull's error, and
> > > even if LG had been correct, it would have made no difference
> > > to what Curtis said.
> > > 
> > > > that Robin was itching for some kind of fight with you.
> > > > Curtis is arguing against this but I am not buying that
> > > 
> > > There are a number of reasons not to buy it, including
> > > his insistence that it was "obvious" what he meant when
> > > what was obvious was that what he said was at best
> > > *ambiguous*.
> > > 
> > > Furthermore, he completely ignored the fact that Robin
> > > was responding to an extremely unfriendly post of Share's,
> > > in which she had accused him of being "sarcastic and
> > > accusatory when [Curtis] sounded reasonable." This was
> > > with reference to Robin's critique of Curtis's response
> > > to your post about Barry, Ann.
> > > 
> > > (snip)
> > > > I believe I have said this before to you, but not in quite
> > > > the same way; apologizing can be a means of avoidance. It
> > > > can appear so generalized, so non-specific that it seeks to
> > > > encompass everything and manages to address nothing relevant.
> > > > You blanket the world with apologies just in case offense
> > > > has been taken somewhere. It is like you seek to inoculate
> > > > yourself against possible offense taken by others before
> > > > they even have time to react.
> > > 
> > > It also cheapens the significance of the apology. If someone
> > > is constantly apologizing for insignificant or nonexistent
> > > offenses thinking it will make themselves look good, what
> > > will an apology from this person mean for something that
> > > really requires an apology?
> > > 
> > > If an apology costs nothing to make, it's worthless to
> > > the person to whom it is given.
> > > 
> > > It would cost Share something to apologize for calling
> > > Robin a psychological rapist. But

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Buck]

Thanks Curtis,
Good summary post. 
I didn't have time to read all these posts last week.
I appreciate the cut to the chase.
Except for a pile on which may come, Is this argument about over?
Best Regards,
-Buck in Fairfield

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> snip
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of
> > > > the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the
> > > > least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality
> > > > Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic
> > > > to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read
> > > > and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is
> > > > that people would have to shower less if they just
> > > > ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and
> > > > pristine snow he is.
> > > > 
> > > > [Barry about Robin--from yesterday)
> > > > 
> > > > CURTIS:
> > > > 
> > > > In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that I 
> > > > am referring only to his 
> > > > "intensely opinionated posts"--not, for example, to the posts he just 
> > > > wrote from Paris.
> 
> But you are wrong about them too.  It is YOUR lack of ability to see his 
> internal processes in them.  If anything it comes through more simply in 
> those.  He comes across much more complexly in his less focused posts. 
> 
> > > > 
> > > > But you knew this.
> > > > 
> > > > What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my analysis 
> > > > of him.
> > > > 
> > > > It is his "freak of nature" persona [AWB], not his fluent and engaging 
> > > > travelogues--or even movie reviews.
> > > > 
> > > > But you knew this.
> 
> Can't you just see that in some posts he is peevishly dismissing things that 
> annoy him. You are reading too much into it because some of them are focused 
> on you.  But even the infamous C posts were completely comprehensible in 
> terms of his POV and thinking process.
> 
> > > > 
> > > > The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a 
> > > > comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are 
> > > > specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my analysis 
> > > > of him. They are not.
> > > > 
> > > > Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the 
> > > > discerning FFL reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE THE PLACE OF A REAL 
> > > > RESPONSE TO THOSE FOUR POSTS TO YOU OF YESTERDAY (where I did say 
> > > > everything I could want to say) is an extraordinary thing. You have, I 
> > > > must assume, answered my four posts by this post. This certainly is 
> > > > WHAT YOU WANT THIS POST TO DO FOR YOU.
> 
> Don't you EVER get tired of attempting this kind of mindfuck Robin.  
> Seriously, it is so lame.  What I want this post to do is to express ideas I 
> am interested in expressing.
> 
> 
> > > > 
> > > > I think it may very well work in the majority of those FFL readers who 
> > > > come upon this; especially right after reading Barry's posts from Paris 
> > > > of today.
> > > > 
> > > > Paris is not The Stupid Cunt category. 
> > > > 
> > > > Stream of consciousness? That has nothing whatsoever to do with my 
> > > > analysis, Curtis
> 
> 
> It has to do with mine.
> 
> > > > 
> > > > "In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your experience 
> > > > of yourself. That is what is killing your ability to perceive others 
> > > > beyond your internal cartoon images of them. Carried away by your 
> > > > internal experience, you fill the page with observations that only 
> > > > apply to your internal world."
> > > > 
> > > > This is the most ludicrous and dishonest and absurd thing you have ever 
> > > > said about me, Curtis.
> > > > 
> > > > Each word is a lie--and the entire meaning of this, it has no 
> > > > application, for example, to my four posts I wrote to you yesterday.>
> 
> 
> Actually it does but you will never hear it.  I know that now.
> 
> > > > 
> > > > You are the most beautiful liar I know, Curtis.>
> 
> 
> Mindfuckery statement.  Did this used to work for you in the old days with 
> younger minds?
> 
> 
> > > > 
> > > > I suppose I should, just for purposes of not excluding any possibility, 
> > > > hold before me the notion that this last paragraph is the performance 
> > > > of irony which exceeds anything we have read on FFL. If it is this--and 
> > > > from some perspective I think it could be argued that this is indeed 
> > > > what you are doing here (I believe I could make the case for this 
> > > > reading of this passage, Curtis)--then I think it brilliant.
> > > > 
> > > > But you are ever the shrewd scheming fellow, Curtis (when it comes to 
> > > > controversy over truth or human motives or what is real--once the fight 
> > > > begins). But in the context of my having written all that I wrote to 
> > > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[feste37]

I find people who insist on getting apologies to be very tiresome. It's s form 
of aggression. In this case, it is not even the "wronged" person who is 
insisting on it, but his self-appointed protector. Authfriend reminds me of a 
mother hen protecting one of her chicks, without noticing, apparently, that her 
"chick" is a full-grown rooster who can and does out-crow anyone on the block. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or
> "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as
> you have not apologized for calling Robin a
> "psychological rapist."
> 
> In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step"
> because you never took the first step. I'm virtually
> positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin
> as soon as you were to take the first step: he would
> forgive you if you apologized sincerely.
> 
> That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your
> character.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making amends part of 
> > an apology.  Even in our recent exchange I asked Robin how I could make 
> > amends for misunderstanding him about his turq post and Curtis exchange.  
> > For me it is the making amends that is the sine qua non of an apology and 
> > this is where the cost comes in.  And of course the cost or amends is 
> > meant to address the actual consequences.  Such as a restitution of money 
> > in the case of a compulsive gambler who lost the family savings for 
> > example.  
> > 
> > But the first step is to offer
> >  apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other person.  
> > Robin and I did not get to the second step last year.  And it seems we're 
> > not getting to it again.  But I've made my offer and stand by it.
> > 
> > As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing.  In those days 
> > many people went to confession every week.  Also I say it just in case 
> > I've hurt someone's feelings.  The better I know FFL people the more I'll 
> > dispense with that.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: authfriend 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > You and Robin seemed to be able to engage in some wonderful
> > > dialogue back then. And for the record, I DO think Curtis
> > > meant that from the BEGINNING, (I'm not bothering with the
> > > "outset" or the "onset", I'm not getting embroiled in the
> > > semantics of that)
> > 
> > Right, that's irrelevant. That was laughinggull's error, and
> > even if LG had been correct, it would have made no difference
> > to what Curtis said.
> > 
> > > that Robin was itching for some kind of fight with you.
> > > Curtis is arguing against this but I am not buying that
> > 
> > There are a number of reasons not to buy it, including
> > his insistence that it was "obvious" what he meant when
> > what was obvious was that what he said was at best
> > *ambiguous*.
> > 
> > Furthermore, he completely ignored the fact that Robin
> > was responding to an extremely unfriendly post of Share's,
> > in which she had accused him of being "sarcastic and
> > accusatory when [Curtis] sounded reasonable." This was
> > with reference to Robin's critique of Curtis's response
> > to your post about Barry, Ann.
> > 
> > (snip)
> > > I believe I have said this before to you, but not in quite
> > > the same way; apologizing can be a means of avoidance. It
> > > can appear so generalized, so non-specific that it seeks to
> > > encompass everything and manages to address nothing relevant.
> > > You blanket the world with apologies just in case offense
> > > has been taken somewhere. It is like you seek to inoculate
> > > yourself against possible offense taken by others before
> > > they even have time to react.
> > 
> > It also cheapens the significance of the apology. If someone
> > is constantly apologizing for insignificant or nonexistent
> > offenses thinking it will make themselves look good, what
> > will an apology from this person mean for something that
> > really requires an apology?
> > 
> > If an apology costs nothing to make, it's worthless to
> > the person to whom it is given.
> > 
> > It would cost Share something to apologize for calling
> > Robin a psychological rapist. But she isn't willing to
> > give that much of herself to right the grievous wrong
> > for which she was responsible.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
snip> > 
> > The rest of the piece just amplifies this impression.  You
> > believe only a word flood can answer a word flood, I do not.
> 
> You know, Curtis, the dismissively loaded phrase "word flood"
> may have had some impact the first time you used it, but it
> doesn't wear too well with constant repetition. About all it
> conveys now is that you're at a loss to deal with detailed
> reasoning.>

You know what wears even less well?  Getting word flooded by a person who 
refuses to ever edit his writing to fit into a remotely normal person's ability 
to interact here.

And you as a professional editor should know better.  I am calling it as I see 
it.  A tactic of wearing someone down with an unrealistically long flood of 
words.  Eventually he posts 3 more than I could be reasonably expected to 
answer, and this is called to attention by both of you.  Winning through 
attrition in a game I am not playing.

You are a bit of a word flooder but not even in the same league as Robin. With 
you the righting is tight but it extends longer and longer because you never 
get enough of the specific interaction even after the person had made their 
points and is done. If you walked a few posts in my shoes you might be more 
sympathetic.  It is a sensation of drowning in too much unedited ideas that 
could never be answered because they grow exponentially with each post.  Only 
you two do this here.  But you have never gone head to head with Robin in the 
way that I have so your charge of my being unable to deal with "detailed 
reasoning" is crap.

> 
> If you had understood what Robin wrote, you could have made
> an appropriate succinct comment. The one you did make about
> "stream of consciousness" was irrelevant.

Not to me or the actual author of the post in question, Barry.  We both thought 
it was a good description of how he posts, and the absurdity to claim that he 
doesn't reveal himself in some unique way that only Robin can detect.

> 
> > > Too bad you didn't think of this ploy the first time you
> > > tried to argue against the post. Then, according to you,
> > > Robin couldn't see Barry's experience of himself in his
> > > posts because Barry isn't open to being vulnerable to
> > > people he doesn't like.
> > 
> > That was also true and reveals a common cognitive problem
> > you have.
> 
> (snicker) Right, Curtis. It's my cognitive problem that I am
> able to spot your inconsistencies.

I am playing to the balcony here. I know you will absorb nothing of this.  Your 
framing this behavior this way prevents it.

Since I have interacted with you on an Internet forum this is your most 
maddening trait.  You gut hung up on something that has no relation to the 
whole, and the meaning of the post gets derailed.  I used to think it was 
deliberate but now believe that you really can't help yourself.  This is how 
you experience the world.

Take our last go around that seemed to fascinate you beyond any other point in 
my discussion with Robin, that I was ACTUALLY referring to some irrelevant past 
relationship Robin had with Share before the whole post exchange we were 
discussing.  Most obviously it had to do with his predisposition to enter this 
exchange with the unfriendly agenda of shocking her into facing the "reality" 
that is Robin approved.

But you couldn't get off it.  You had to create a cockamamie theory of me being 
motivated to lie about my actual intended meaning once I clarified it.

It made no rational sense outside your imagination of my dark intentions.  It 
was weird.  And it was a derailment.  I could post 100 more examples but it 
will all be the same in the end.

You cannot help this.  I am not sure about Robin yet.

But the point it derailed was about how Robin entered into the interaction with 
an unfriendly agenda.  That was my point that got lost in this idiotic word 
parsing based on your imagination that I would be motivated to LIE about 
something so stupid,rather than accept my correction of YOUR misunderstanding.

> 
> > You cannot hold to different ideas in your mind together.
> > Hint:One deals with his direct communication with someone
> > and one is a general writing piece for people like me who
> > enjoy them.
> 
> Robin was explicit that his analysis *excluded* the latter

And his analysis was wrong about that too, but I will address that to him.

> 
> > > Neither attempted refutation has much of anything to do
> > > with Robin's actual analysis, which is considerably more
> > > subtle and complex than you've been able to grasp (or at
> > > least wanted anybody else to grasp).
> > 
> > Jesus Robin will you plze throw some holy water on
> > this long suffering disciple.
> > 
> > I liked the little insinuation that I can magically control
> > how other people view Robin by expressing an opinion.
> 
> I didn't mean to suggest you're *successful* at it.
> 
> > I wonder if you believe you have such magical 

[FairfieldLife] Re: HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

snip
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Me, I'm gonna stick with my three-word description of
> > > the guy, which I think explains it all, and in the
> > > least possible number of words: Narcissistic Personality
> > > Disorder, in spades. OK, that was five words. :-)
> > > 
> > > People here must be really, Really, REALLY masochistic
> > > to put up with this kinda abuse by continuing to read
> > > and respond to this asshole's crap. My suggestion is
> > > that people would have to shower less if they just
> > > ignored him like the pisshole in otherwise new and
> > > pristine snow he is.
> > > 
> > > [Barry about Robin--from yesterday)
> > > 
> > > CURTIS:
> > > 
> > > In my analysis of your friend, I have been careful to stipulate that I am 
> > > referring only to his 
> > > "intensely opinionated posts"--not, for example, to the posts he just 
> > > wrote from Paris.

But you are wrong about them too.  It is YOUR lack of ability to see his 
internal processes in them.  If anything it comes through more simply in those. 
 He comes across much more complexly in his less focused posts. 

> > > 
> > > But you knew this.
> > > 
> > > What he wrote here about me perfectly reveals the truth of my analysis of 
> > > him.
> > > 
> > > It is his "freak of nature" persona [AWB], not his fluent and engaging 
> > > travelogues--or even movie reviews.
> > > 
> > > But you knew this.

Can't you just see that in some posts he is peevishly dismissing things that 
annoy him. You are reading too much into it because some of them are focused on 
you.  But even the infamous C posts were completely comprehensible in terms of 
his POV and thinking process.

> > > 
> > > The analysis of this person stands, even as you have chosen to make a 
> > > comment in some way that would suggest that his posts of today are 
> > > specimens by which the reader can test the truthfulness of my analysis of 
> > > him. They are not.
> > > 
> > > Your conscience hardly shows itself here, Curtis. And for the discerning 
> > > FFL reader for you to MAKE THIS TAKE THE PLACE OF A REAL RESPONSE TO 
> > > THOSE FOUR POSTS TO YOU OF YESTERDAY (where I did say everything I could 
> > > want to say) is an extraordinary thing. You have, I must assume, answered 
> > > my four posts by this post. This certainly is WHAT YOU WANT THIS POST TO 
> > > DO FOR YOU.

Don't you EVER get tired of attempting this kind of mindfuck Robin.  Seriously, 
it is so lame.  What I want this post to do is to express ideas I am interested 
in expressing.


> > > 
> > > I think it may very well work in the majority of those FFL readers who 
> > > come upon this; especially right after reading Barry's posts from Paris 
> > > of today.
> > > 
> > > Paris is not The Stupid Cunt category. 
> > > 
> > > Stream of consciousness? That has nothing whatsoever to do with my 
> > > analysis, Curtis


It has to do with mine.

> > > 
> > > "In your writing, you seem to only be able to focus on your experience of 
> > > yourself. That is what is killing your ability to perceive others beyond 
> > > your internal cartoon images of them. Carried away by your internal 
> > > experience, you fill the page with observations that only apply to your 
> > > internal world."
> > > 
> > > This is the most ludicrous and dishonest and absurd thing you have ever 
> > > said about me, Curtis.
> > > 
> > > Each word is a lie--and the entire meaning of this, it has no 
> > > application, for example, to my four posts I wrote to you yesterday.>


Actually it does but you will never hear it.  I know that now.

> > > 
> > > You are the most beautiful liar I know, Curtis.>


Mindfuckery statement.  Did this used to work for you in the old days with 
younger minds?


> > > 
> > > I suppose I should, just for purposes of not excluding any possibility, 
> > > hold before me the notion that this last paragraph is the performance of 
> > > irony which exceeds anything we have read on FFL. If it is this--and from 
> > > some perspective I think it could be argued that this is indeed what you 
> > > are doing here (I believe I could make the case for this reading of this 
> > > passage, Curtis)--then I think it brilliant.
> > > 
> > > But you are ever the shrewd scheming fellow, Curtis (when it comes to 
> > > controversy over truth or human motives or what is real--once the fight 
> > > begins). But in the context of my having written all that I wrote to you 
> > > yesterday, for this to be your first attempt at answering me (and you 
> > > want this post to do the work of this, Curtis), well you have (if you 
> > > were not being deliberately ironic) proven that those four posts are 
> > > unanswerable.


Dude, enough with the word flood posts.  I read most of them and I have nothing 
to say.  You are impervious to feedback and they were too long...again.  
Tighten up you shit if you want me to respond to you.  I am not your editor.  
Better yet, send all your posts to 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit: speech and splendour!

[Share Long]

How about some ABBA?  How could I ever refuse, I feel like I win when I lose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FsVeMz1F5c

ABBA Waterloo Eurovision on youtube
Just in case url acts wonky




 From: merudanda 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 7:50 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit: speech and splendour!
 

  
 
http://sanskritdictionary.com/%C4%81bh%C4%81sa/29184/1 
"nice "─Бbh─Бс╣гaс╣Зa рдЖрднрд╛рд╖рдг
http://sanskritdictionary.com/word.php?q=%C4%81bh%C4%81%E1%B9%A3a%E1%B9%87a&t=1&d=29175
 
my dear card player dear  shine upon-illuminate to throw light upon-exhibit the 
falsity of anything -Cardemaister (-: could it be just
я║Бя║`я╗мя║О╪│рдЖрднрд╛рд╕ ─Бbh─Бs,  
 fancy; thought; impression, idea; intention, purpose,semblance, likeness; 
semblance of a reason;

(John T. Platts)   
  just saying in typing

BTW
could be also  just any living entities who have the appearance(o.m.mere 
appearance, fallacious appearance)
see
AabhAa(aa-bhaa)
 =2 f. splendour, light; a flash; colour, appearance, beauty  a reflected 
image, outline; likeness, resemblance 
in other word (alpha -betically)Ann,Emily,Judy,Raunchydog, Share,Susan etc etc 
combined?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card"  wrote:
>
> 
> Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: Search Results
> 
> 1 AbhASa  m. speech , talking ; addressing R. ; a saying , proverb ; 
> introduction , preface L.
> 
> 2 AbhAsa  m. splendour , light R. Veda1ntas. 195 ; colour , appearance R. 
> Sus3r. Bhag. ; semblance , phantom , phantasm of the imagination ; mere 
> appearance , fallacious appearance Veda1ntas. S3a1n3khS3r. ; reflection ; 
> intention , purpose ; (in log.) fallacy , semblance of a reason , sophism , 
> an erroneous though plausible argument (regarded by logicians as of various 
> kind) ; ifc. looking like , having the mere appearance of a thing Gaut. Sa1h. 
> &c.
> 
> (Can you spot the difference between those two words? LOL!)
>

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[curtisdeltablues]

Back when this first came up I supported Share's flamboyant choice of words to 
sum up how it feels to be the focus of Robin's assumption that you are not 
aligned with "reality" and his writing is going to jolt you into an ability to 
face life in a Robin approved more real way.

I call it "mindfuckery", but Share's term conveys more how invasive this 
unfriendly assumption feels from the receiving end.  Combined with the word 
flooding it is quite unpleasant.

In my view it would be Robin who would owe the apology for acting in a way that 
would make someone think this term was the best way to describe it.

And instead of taking the feedback of how far over the boundaries line he had 
crossed...

she got and still gets the predictable pile on for feeling this way.

Note to Share:  You will never be able to appease this unfriendly agenda no 
matter what you say.  It is s double bind where the "sincerity" of even an 
unnecessary apology will be judged by them.

And again you will lose because that is how the formula works.  







--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or
> "making amends" is the least bit credible as long as
> you have not apologized for calling Robin a
> "psychological rapist."
> 
> In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step"
> because you never took the first step. I'm virtually
> positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin
> as soon as you were to take the first step: he would
> forgive you if you apologized sincerely.
> 
> That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your
> character.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
> >
> > Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making amends part of 
> > an apology.  Even in our recent exchange I asked Robin how I could make 
> > amends for misunderstanding him about his turq post and Curtis exchange.  
> > For me it is the making amends that is the sine qua non of an apology and 
> > this is where the cost comes in.  And of course the cost or amends is 
> > meant to address the actual consequences.  Such as a restitution of money 
> > in the case of a compulsive gambler who lost the family savings for 
> > example.  
> > 
> > But the first step is to offer
> >  apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other person.  
> > Robin and I did not get to the second step last year.  And it seems we're 
> > not getting to it again.  But I've made my offer and stand by it.
> > 
> > As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing.  In those days 
> > many people went to confession every week.  Also I say it just in case 
> > I've hurt someone's feelings.  The better I know FFL people the more I'll 
> > dispense with that.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  From: authfriend 
> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19 AM
> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE
> >  
> > 
> >   
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > You and Robin seemed to be able to engage in some wonderful
> > > dialogue back then. And for the record, I DO think Curtis
> > > meant that from the BEGINNING, (I'm not bothering with the
> > > "outset" or the "onset", I'm not getting embroiled in the
> > > semantics of that)
> > 
> > Right, that's irrelevant. That was laughinggull's error, and
> > even if LG had been correct, it would have made no difference
> > to what Curtis said.
> > 
> > > that Robin was itching for some kind of fight with you.
> > > Curtis is arguing against this but I am not buying that
> > 
> > There are a number of reasons not to buy it, including
> > his insistence that it was "obvious" what he meant when
> > what was obvious was that what he said was at best
> > *ambiguous*.
> > 
> > Furthermore, he completely ignored the fact that Robin
> > was responding to an extremely unfriendly post of Share's,
> > in which she had accused him of being "sarcastic and
> > accusatory when [Curtis] sounded reasonable." This was
> > with reference to Robin's critique of Curtis's response
> > to your post about Barry, Ann.
> > 
> > (snip)
> > > I believe I have said this before to you, but not in quite
> > > the same way; apologizing can be a means of avoidance. It
> > > can appear so generalized, so non-specific that it seeks to
> > > encompass everything and manages to address nothing relevant.
> > > You blanket the world with apologies just in case offense
> > > has been taken somewhere. It is like you seek to inoculate
> > > yourself against possible offense taken by others before
> > > they even have time to react.
> > 
> > It also cheapens the significance of the apology. If someone
> > is constantly apologizing for insignificant or nonexistent
> > offenses thinking it will make themselves look good, what
> > will an apology from this person mean for something 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: My Extremely Important Post: Graphene!

[Share Long]

dear merudanda, thank you for making me laugh after flying (-:




 From: merudanda 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 8:16 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: My Extremely Important Post: Graphene!
 
snip

  

..It's about flying---again...
or as Richard would say:  so it's all about flying LOL

snip 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card"  wrote:
>
> 
> Apologias megalomanias...
> 
> http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/04/07/graphene-the-miracle-substance.aspx
>

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[authfriend]

Nothing you have to say, Share, about "apologizing" or
"making amends" is the least bit credible as long as
you have not apologized for calling Robin a
"psychological rapist."

In that case you and Robin never got to the "second step"
because you never took the first step. I'm virtually
positive that second step would be forthcoming from Robin
as soon as you were to take the first step: he would
forgive you if you apologized sincerely.

That you have not yet done so is a terrible blot on your
character.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making amends part of an 
> apology.  Even in our recent exchange I asked Robin how I could make amends 
> for misunderstanding him about his turq post and Curtis exchange.  For me it 
> is the making amends that is the sine qua non of an apology and this is where 
> the cost comes in.  And of course the cost or amends is meant to address the 
> actual consequences.  Such as a restitution of money in the case of a 
> compulsive gambler who lost the family savings for example.  
> 
> But the first step is to offer
>  apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other person.  Robin 
> and I did not get to the second step last year.  And it seems we're not 
> getting to it again.  But I've made my offer and stand by it.
> 
> As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing.  In those days 
> many people went to confession every week.  Also I say it just in case I've 
> hurt someone's feelings.  The better I know FFL people the more I'll 
> dispense with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: authfriend 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE
>  
> 
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> (snip)
> > You and Robin seemed to be able to engage in some wonderful
> > dialogue back then. And for the record, I DO think Curtis
> > meant that from the BEGINNING, (I'm not bothering with the
> > "outset" or the "onset", I'm not getting embroiled in the
> > semantics of that)
> 
> Right, that's irrelevant. That was laughinggull's error, and
> even if LG had been correct, it would have made no difference
> to what Curtis said.
> 
> > that Robin was itching for some kind of fight with you.
> > Curtis is arguing against this but I am not buying that
> 
> There are a number of reasons not to buy it, including
> his insistence that it was "obvious" what he meant when
> what was obvious was that what he said was at best
> *ambiguous*.
> 
> Furthermore, he completely ignored the fact that Robin
> was responding to an extremely unfriendly post of Share's,
> in which she had accused him of being "sarcastic and
> accusatory when [Curtis] sounded reasonable." This was
> with reference to Robin's critique of Curtis's response
> to your post about Barry, Ann.
> 
> (snip)
> > I believe I have said this before to you, but not in quite
> > the same way; apologizing can be a means of avoidance. It
> > can appear so generalized, so non-specific that it seeks to
> > encompass everything and manages to address nothing relevant.
> > You blanket the world with apologies just in case offense
> > has been taken somewhere. It is like you seek to inoculate
> > yourself against possible offense taken by others before
> > they even have time to react.
> 
> It also cheapens the significance of the apology. If someone
> is constantly apologizing for insignificant or nonexistent
> offenses thinking it will make themselves look good, what
> will an apology from this person mean for something that
> really requires an apology?
> 
> If an apology costs nothing to make, it's worthless to
> the person to whom it is given.
> 
> It would cost Share something to apologize for calling
> Robin a psychological rapist. But she isn't willing to
> give that much of herself to right the grievous wrong
> for which she was responsible.
>

[FairfieldLife] 'Iron Lady' Prime Minister, Dead at 87

[merudanda]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/margaret-thatcher-britains-iron-lady\
-dead-87/story?id=13644011#.UWLN90oozDk

"It is with great sadness that Mark and Carol Thatcher announced that 
their mother Baroness Thatcher died peacefully following a stroke this 
morning,"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBEREJpOvNo

[FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE

[Ann]

Thanks for the reply. See below for some further thoughts:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> Judy and Ann, as in 12 Steps, I tend to focus on the making amends part of an 
> apology.

But wonder if an apology was not necessary? That is really what my point was 
about. It wasn't about what you do in addition to uttering the words of "I'm 
sorry", it is the fact that these words seem to be said by you for things that 
are not even remotely requiring an apology. Things like making a joke or 
attributing some positive remark to someone even though someone else said it 
(mistaking Raunchy's positive assessment of your early dialogue with Robin with 
my own, for example). 

These are not grievous actions requiring you to prostrate yourself in anguish 
before someone you feel was maligned or hurt. I have to agree with Judy here 
when she says that the frequency of your apologies tend to cheapen them. How 
can/should one value an apology when someone gets them all the time for such 
little things, or sees that you say "I'm sorry" all the time for 
non-transgressions. It is not a huge thing Share, it maybe doesn't even matter, 
but so many of these apologies seem like deflection, a means to shield yourself 
from harm in the form of hurt and negativity which may or may not be projected 
back towards you. If you are unsure if something will hurt someone, or has hurt 
someone, then maybe edit what you are inclined to say and then perhaps you can 
avoid feeling so unsure afterwards. If in doubt, don't do it. It is strange, in 
a way - many here couldn't gag out an apology if their life depended upon it 
and you dispense them so freely it is almost comical. 

  Even in our recent exchange I asked Robin how I could make amends for 
misunderstanding him about his turq post and Curtis exchange.  For me it is 
the making amends that is the sine qua non of an apology and this is where the 
cost comes in.  And of course the cost or amends is meant to address the 
actual consequences.  Such as a restitution of money in the case of a 
compulsive gambler who lost the family savings for example.  

Again, this is not what I was referring to but thanks for the explanation. 
> 
> But the first step is to offer
>  apologies and amends and the second step is up to the other person.  Robin 
> and I did not get to the second step last year.  And it seems we're not 
> getting to it again.  But I've made my offer and stand by it.
> 
> As for frequency, it could be from my Catholic upbringing.  In those days 
> many people went to confession every week.  Also I say it just in case I've 
> hurt someone's feelings.  The better I know FFL people the more I'll 
> dispense with that.

Confession is very different than an apology. They are not remotely alike or 
the same thing. Confessions often don't include apologies and apologies are not 
always a confession, especially when used so frequently and without good reason 
beyond deflecting possible negativity from oneself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: authfriend 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:19 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: parsing a la Descartes was HITLER'S VALENTINE
>  
> 
>   
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> (snip)
> > You and Robin seemed to be able to engage in some wonderful
> > dialogue back then. And for the record, I DO think Curtis
> > meant that from the BEGINNING, (I'm not bothering with the
> > "outset" or the "onset", I'm not getting embroiled in the
> > semantics of that)
> 
> Right, that's irrelevant. That was laughinggull's error, and
> even if LG had been correct, it would have made no difference
> to what Curtis said.
> 
> > that Robin was itching for some kind of fight with you.
> > Curtis is arguing against this but I am not buying that
> 
> There are a number of reasons not to buy it, including
> his insistence that it was "obvious" what he meant when
> what was obvious was that what he said was at best
> *ambiguous*.
> 
> Furthermore, he completely ignored the fact that Robin
> was responding to an extremely unfriendly post of Share's,
> in which she had accused him of being "sarcastic and
> accusatory when [Curtis] sounded reasonable." This was
> with reference to Robin's critique of Curtis's response
> to your post about Barry, Ann.
> 
> (snip)
> > I believe I have said this before to you, but not in quite
> > the same way; apologizing can be a means of avoidance. It
> > can appear so generalized, so non-specific that it seeks to
> > encompass everything and manages to address nothing relevant.
> > You blanket the world with apologies just in case offense
> > has been taken somewhere. It is like you seek to inoculate
> > yourself against possible offense taken by others before
> > they even have time to react.
> 
> It also cheapens the significance of the apology. If someone
> is constantly apologizing for insignificant or nonexistent
>

[FairfieldLife] The Western Mystic

[Buck]

Apex of spiritual Western learning, 
Summary: God is Transcendent...
The opportunity to Transcend exists always...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Ug_ojd9n8

[FairfieldLife] Re: My Extremely Important Post: Graphene!

[merudanda]

..and its not pyrolytic graphite??
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/339782


but OTOH
  Highly oriented pyrolytic graphite (HOPG) is a man- made material which
is polycrystalline with highly oriented graphene sheets
..It's about flying---again... [;)]
Didn't MMY said again and again if you want to fly
..take an aeroplane  [:D]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV8IAOojoAA

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card"  wrote:
>
>
> Apologias megalomanias...
>
>
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/04/07/graphene-the-miracle-su\
bstance.aspx
>

[FairfieldLife] The much abused goddess of plenty

[Jason]

 
 

The much abused goddess of plenty

By Yogi Ashwini

17th March 2013 12:00 AM

Back in 1993, the spread of the mad cow disease took a toll 
of many across the globe. As a result, many stopped 
consuming beef products. However, not eating beef does not 
guarantee an escape from the disease and infection that 
comes with abusing the cow. Cattle by-products today find 
their way into almost everything around us. Gelatine  is 
made by treating the bones of a cow with acid and finds its 
way into gel capsules, food products such as jellybeans, 
marshmallows and instant gelatine; as a setting agent for 
ice-creams and cheesecakes; as a coat on tablets and even to 
bind photo film. Fat from the dead cow is used in making 
soap, toothpaste as well as automobile tyres and also in 
asphalt. Glycerin derived from cow fat is used in 
manufacturing cosmetics. In war time, it's used in the 
explosive nitroglycerine. Its hooves and horns adorn our 
shirts as buttons and also make up the foam of fire 
extinguishers. Its blood goes into making plywood and 
fertilisers. Its hide becomes leather shoes or sporting 
goods while the foot oil obtained by boiling dead cows' feet 
is used to dress the leather. The root gland of the tongue 
yields pregastric lipase, which is used in cheese-making. 
Tissue from its small intestines is used for tennis racket 
strings and also as surgical sutures. Its nasal septum goes 
into making medicine for arthritis; from its lungs and 
intestines the anticoagulant drug heparin is made, and the 
cow's adrenal gland gives epinephrine. Catalase from its 
liver is used in lens-care products. The cholesterol, which 
is used to make artificial male sex hormones, comes from the 
cow's spinal cord, a tissue that contains prions -- the 
rogue protein that causes mad cow disease. Ironically, 
vaccines are grown in foetal calf serum.

So, whether you are a vegetarian or non-vegetarian, a Hindu, 
a Muslim or a Christian, the hands of all are stained with 
the blood of the cow. It is said that what goes around, 
comes around. Abusing the cow is coming back to us not just 
as mad cow disease, but also as a plethora of other health 
risks posed by cattle products. Beef is heavy on the heart, 
reproductive system, immunity, progeny and even on the 
chance of your survival! Beef sold in the market is 
saturated with Omega 6 fats that promote heart disease. It 
is implanted with heavy doses of diet supplements, hormones, 
drugs and antibiotics that play havoc with your immune 
system and are often responsible for cancer, premature 
puberty and falling sperm counts. Beef is irradiated many 
times, exposing you and your progeny to radioactive material 
and harmful gamma rays. This beef has also been found to 
contain significant quantities of dioxin that is linked to 
diseases such as cancer and reproductive defects. E. coli 
O157:H7 that resides in the intestines of healthy cattle 
foster acute hemorrhagic diarrhoea and abdominal cramps in 
humans. Beef and other cattle by-products are often 
contaminated with heavy metals, pesticides and chemicals 
used in cattle farming. One look at any local garbage dump 
is enough to convince anyone of the various deadly wastes 
that fill the stomachs of the animals that forage around. 
These deadly wastes find their way through the above 
mentioned products into your homes and your body.

These days there is a misconception among people that cow 
meat promotes physical strength and muscle power. There is 
not one Indian wrestler who consumes beef. In fact, Dara 
Singh who was a champion of his times was largely a 
vegetarian. The only thing you can gain from meat is the bad 
karma of inflicting pain on an evolved being. Research 
suggests that frequent meat eaters are twice as likely to 
get colon cancer and nine times more likely to be obese 
compared to non-beef eaters. It has also been found that at 
the age of 65, the average eater of meat suffers twice the 
bone loss of their vegetarian counterparts.

Alongside the dangers that traditionally-raised beef pose to 
your health are the dangers they pose to your environment. A 
UN report places meat production at top two or three 
contributors to serious environmental problems. It accounts 
for about 20 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. It takes 
around 20 times more fossil fuel to grow meat compared to 
the equivalent weight of vegetables. An astounding amount of 
water is used to raise meat adding to the problems of water 
scarcity. The vast amounts of petrochemicals, pesticides and 
chemical fertilisers used in meat production find their way 
into waterways, threatening aquatic life. The over-grazing 
of beef cattle and usage of land to grow animal feed 
contribute to soil erosion, food shortages (as the land and 
grains used to feed cattle that feed the affluent competes 
with the grains meant for men), and global warming (from the 
loss of plant life that would otherwise absorb CO2). 
Cattle-farming is also the p

[FairfieldLife] Re: Sanskrit: speech and splendour!

[merudanda]

 http://sanskritdictionary.com/%C4%81bh%C4%81sa/29184/1

"nice "ābhāṣaṇa आभाषण
http://sanskritdictionary.com/word.php?q=%C4%81bh%C4%81%E1%B9%A3a%E1%B9%\
87a&t=1&d=29175

my dear card player dear  shine upon-illuminate to throw light
upon-exhibit the falsity of anything -Cardemaister (-: [;)]  could it be
just
ﺁïº`ﻬﺎسआभास ābhās,
  fancy; thought; impression, idea; intention, purpose,semblance,
likeness; semblance of a reason;

(John T. Platts)
   just saying in typing [:D]

BTW
could be also  just any living entities who have the appearance(o.m.mere
appearance, fallacious appearance)
see
AabhAa(aa-bhaa)
  =2 f. splendour, light; a flash; colour, appearance, beauty  a
reflected image, outline; likeness, resemblance
in other word (alpha -betically)Ann,Emily,Judy,Raunchydog, Share,Susan
etc etc combined? [:x]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card"  wrote:
>
>
> Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: Search Results
>
> 1 AbhASa m. speech , talking ; addressing R. ; a saying , proverb ;
introduction , preface L.
>
> 2 AbhAsa m. splendour , light R. Veda1ntas. 195 ; colour , appearance
R. Sus3r. Bhag. ; semblance , phantom , phantasm of the imagination ;
mere appearance , fallacious appearance Veda1ntas. S3a1n3khS3r. ;
reflection ; intention , purpose ; (in log.) fallacy , semblance of a
reason , sophism , an erroneous though plausible argument (regarded by
logicians as of various kind) ; ifc. looking like , having the mere
appearance of a thing Gaut. Sa1h. &c.
>
> (Can you spot the difference between those two words? LOL!)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: xTED, Fairfield, Iowa's "Our Conscious Future"

[Buck]

 In the center of it all is a deeper understanding of consciousness.

>
> 
> Learn how the latest advances in mind, body & society are converging to 
> create new paradigms
> for humankind.
> 
> > 
> > Brilliant minds (and hearts) presenting cutting-edge knowledge
> > that can enrich your life and change the world.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Our Conscious Future.
> > > A Visionary Conference
> > > April 20, 2013
> > > Fairfield, Iowa
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > Featured speakers in the TED-style.  
> > > > 
> > > > Thought leaders from around the globe will be converging here to 
> > > > explore the new paradigms shaping a more unified vision for humankind.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Fairfield Community,
> > > > > 
> > > > > I would like to warmly invite the entire community to a visionary 
> > > > > conference event—Our Conscious Future—on April 20 at MUM.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thought leaders from around the globe will be converging here to 
> > > > > explore the new paradigms shaping a more unified vision for 
> > > > > humankind. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > xTED.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Dateline: the Fairfield Weekly Reader this week:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > "...the challenges continued on the scientific rigor of some talks 
> > > > > > as well an underlying theme of consciousness present in some 
> > > > > > presentations.   …the whole field of consciousness was a hot issue 
> > > > > > and a red flag for the TED community.   .. They challenged our 
> > > > > > subtitle- "Consciousness and Transformation"-TED, as I found 
> > > > > > out later, they were at the center of a "consciousness controversy" 
> > > > > >  TED pulled videos of such scientists as Rupert Sheldrake, …, the 
> > > > > > next week, the TEDxWestHollywood event-also with a 
> > > > > > consciousness-oriented theme... -had their license revoked just two 
> > > > > > weeks prior to their event.   …, Silver Lining. Consciousness is so 
> > > > > > intrinsic to much of life in Fairfield...  chosen to reframe this 
> > > > > > TEDx experience as an opportunity to restructure our event 
> > > > > > [without] TEDx."
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > X-TEDx:  creating a platform where we can freely express a 
> > > > > > consciousness-based orientation, an orientation of richness, 
> > > > > > subtlety, and depth.   …  April 20th  -  "Our Conscious Future."
> > > > > > xTED
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > "... consider this as an opportunity to re-affirm our own core 
> > > > > > values, as we explore the emerging paradigms shaping our conscious 
> > > > > > future."
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > xTED
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>