[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: You know, I could write pages and pages with illustrative examples from his posts documenting meanspiritedness and dishonesty, among other traits. I can't document unhappy; it's just a very strong sense I (and others) have gotten. But happy people are not typically meanspirited and dishonest, etc. Judy, I don't believe that you could really write pages and pages with illustrative examples of Barry's meanspiritedness and dishonesty. One or two pages won't do it. I want to see pages and pages with illustrative examples. Minions... L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip The humiliation of having Michael confirm what I said has just about driven Barry around the bend. If you consider yourself a friend of his, you ought to be helping him deal with it by gently drawing him closer to reality and reassuring him that he'll survive. You aren't doing him any favors by validating his fantasies. He's in enough trouble already. You know Judy, I've known Barry for nearly 30 years. It's more than 30 years actually (damn how time flies!). You are engaging in utter fantasy about him. Barry has an extremely keen sense of humor. He's one of the few people I've known who can truly get as much pleasure laughing at himself as someone else. Look, I know you have to defend him because he's your friend, but I've known him for almost 14 years now-- not as long as you have, and only via this medium-- but long enough to have a pretty clear idea of who he is. I have never *once* seen him laugh at himself. Maybe he does it in real life with people he's close to and not threatened by, but he has a need to present himself quite differently in this venue. He doesn't come over like that to me at all. I've seen humility in the guy on these pages many times. He's always the first to put his hand up when he makes a mistake, I'm sure if he was arrogant he wouldn't bother. And enough others over the years have validated my take on him, both in public and in private, for me to know I'm not indulging in some purely personal fantasy about him. He's one of the most mean-spirited, hypocritical, dishonest, ego-driven, angry, unhappy individuals I've ever encountered anywhere. I'm not writing this to have a go Judy, just as a different opinion from a different perspective. Usually I steer well clear of your arguments as I don't think they are any of my business and I've only been here a short time so I don't know the full in's and out's. And I don't feel I have to defend Barry at all, he's more than capable of looking after himself but I think your analysis here is way wide of the mark, maybe you're projecting most of this, I really don't know how you got into this state but it seems to be a hallmark of your online relationships. Can we admit that? But Judy, Mean spirited? I think the guy's all heart. Unhappy? A joke, surely. Dishonest? I don't know where you're getting this from. Maybe it all just boils down to the fact he doesn't like you. I've had hundreds of pleasant conversations with Barry about all sorts of things, obviously we are similar in a lot of ways but I *don't* get the feeling that is the sole reason we get along. It would be boring if it was. And I agree whith Sal that anyone who blames Barry for them leaving is a bit of a sad case. Maybe the real reason Jim left is because he couldn't answer Barry's tough questions? My instinct is NOT to press send here I'm not writing this to be critical or in expectation of you, or anyone, liking the Barry but just to give you the idea that some see him differently to you and and Nabluss etc. Or maybe his Negativity Ray (TM) and Literary Eloquence (TM) have blurred my brain too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Michael, you CLAIM that they are not yours. You suffer from the same dis-ease as Judy, in that you cannot conceive of anyone's assessment of you and your motives that differs from your own being correct or valid. If they don't see you and your motives and your trends the way you do, they are WRONG. I think my assessments of your actions and your motives are correct, and I stand by them. Hmmm... So when you perceive something that Michael denies, you're right and he's wrong, but when I perceive something about Curtis, I'm wrong and he's right? Goodness. I'm right FOR ME. I can see why he believes what he says, it's just that *I* don't believe what he says. For me it's all about ACTIONS. When those actions do not correspond with what the person claims that he (or she) is doing, then I tend to dis- believe the person who is making the claims. My view of them isn't right in any cosmic sense, not The Truth; it's just the way I see that person. What Michael didn't like was me SAYING how I see him. He tended to go ballistic when I presented a view of him, his consistent overreactions to certain hot button issues when they came up, and his motives FOR overreating to them. He wanted me to believe HIS version, and got upset when I didn't. I *understand* that's how he sees himself. It's just not the way that *I* see him. He couldn't live with that, so he bailed. I don't buy all of YOUR claims about why you do the things you do on a consistent basis, either, and say so. But you manage to hang in here anyway. In my book, that puts you on a higher plane than Michael.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Turq, you know the irony about this entire conversation? If you recall, it all started because one of the brightest new lights in this group ruthsimplicity left and made no bones about the fact that she left because she had better things to do than waste another moment of her energy on one Judith Stein. Exactly. And Judy's response was to trot out the Lawson Response when confronted with something that the TMO does, But...but...but...these *other* guys do it, TOO. It was an I'm not guilty because this person over here is MORE guilty diversion ploy. I truly loved Ruth's posts here. Always respectful and often brilliant. That does NOT mean I always agreed with her! But she made me think through my position on more than one occaisian. She also had a patient way (as does Curtis) that I really do admire. As do I. But look where we are now.you-know-who has steered this whole issue from the loss (100% due to old horse laugh herself) of someone whose writing REALLY uplifted the entire group down to a silly conversation about your role in making some semi-colorless sap leave. Good phrase. I must remember that one. :-) I agree with you. Meanwhile, Judy expended 33 of her 50 posts yesterday, and we only have to live with 17 more of them this week, so it's not all a loss. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: snip If anybody thinks that this is an overeaction, or is interested, you can look at the last post Barry wrote to one of my posts, and then compare it to the original post. To cut it short, Barry draws a number of conclusions out of my posts about my alleged opinions, which are in no way written there, and which I had made clear to him before, that they are not mine. Michael, you CLAIM that they are not yours. You suffer from the same dis-ease as Judy, in that you cannot conceive of anyone's assessment of you and your motives that differs from your own being correct or valid. If they don't see you and your motives and your trends the way you do, they are WRONG. I think my assessments of your actions and your motives are correct, and I stand by them. Hmmm... So when you perceive something that Michael denies, you're right and he's wrong, but when I perceive something about Curtis, I'm wrong and he's right? Barry is currently in the throes of a massive struggle with cognitive dissonance that has reached a crisis stage. As far as his psyche is concerned, it's a battle for his very survival. What Judy says above is called OPINION. It's her interpreting my actions a certain way, as colored by her upbringing and the things that she believes about the world. It's also laughable, from my point of view, but she has the right to say it. Unlike Michael, I won't go off the deep end and unsubscribe because she sees me differently than I see myself. I also won't spend any energy refuting her view of who and what I am and what is motivating me because what she says doesn't affect me in any way, just as her very *existence* or *non- existence* doesn't affect me in any way. Spending post after post defending myself would, in my opinion, just demonstrate how attached I was to one fixed notion of self. That's what Judy and Michael and Jim do for fun. I have other ways of having fun, ways that allow me a bit more flexibility in terms of self, or selves. Yesterday saw a *great number* of people coming out of the woodwork with their theories of what motivates me and what kind of psychopath they believe I am. As I remember, the people who felt the need to pile on included Judy (of course), Shemp, Lawson, Jim, Nablus, and Michael. Willytex will pile on as soon as he logs on again. Look at that list of names. Based on what they write here, and the number of times they have been *excited* about something happening in their own lives, do ANY of them strike you as happy people? ANY of them? (Jim does seem to be the one in the list who has more of a real life than the others IMO, and since he is undoubtedly still reading FFL while pretending not to, I thought I should say this.) I may not be the best person to judge, but I think that my posts are pretty much a blend of me being funny, happy, celebrating my weird life in a Span- ish beach town, remembering high moments from the past, writing about high moments in the present, AND some diatribes against aspects of the TMO or its followers that I think deserve to be beaten with a stick, AND being basically a jerk. In other words, I think I've got RANGE. My posts reflect a life that has its ups and downs, but that really DOES has its ups. I don't really see their posts as containing very many ups. I wouldn't trade my life for ANY of theirs, and I don't think many other people here would, either. Look at the list of pile on names again. Judy, Shemp, Lawson, Jim, Micheals, Nablus, and Willytex. Would YOU trade lives with ANY of them? Would you willingly spend even *ten minutes* inside one of their heads? 'Nuff said...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know Judy, I've known Barry for nearly 30 years. It's more than 30 years actually (damn how time flies!). You are engaging in utter fantasy about him. Barry has an extremely keen sense of humor. He's one of the few people I've known who can truly get as much pleasure laughing at himself as someone else. Thanks for the riff, Geez. BTW, on Friday when I was out of posts, I wrote you an email about some of those bygone days, but I sent it stupidly to your Yahoo address, not your real one. If you think for one second that Barry is humilated by what Michael said you haven't learned a thing about him in all of these years of endless sparring. She hasn't learned a thing about me in all these years of mindless sparring. Tweaking you is sport to him. He amuses himself doing it. Exactly. I am the first to admit that it is not the most *admirable* sport in the world, but it gives me pleasure to twist her titties and see her squirm. Barry (like me) likes to laugh and does not like to be bored. Yup. What makes many of your posts so damn boring and redundant is that you take yourself SO seriously. Exactly. As do Jim and Michael. That's why they clump together and get into these You're right... No you're right circle jerks. It's very *important* to them to consider themselves right. Me, I'm probably not right about ANYTHING, and I like things that way. :-) This particular episode started because a sharp intellect (Ruth) realized that debating with you is a dead end. A humorless dead end at that. She decided to leave FFL since you would respond even when she wasn't addressing you. She has better things to do than going around in cirlcles with your own special brand of madness. Many others have felt the same way. And Judy just HATES it when someone dumps her. My bet is that she has been dumped a LOT in her life, and it pushes her buttons again every time it happens. It isn't Barry needin help m'dear. It's you. I could care less whether you get it or not. In the meantime I'll enjoy (when I have time to check in) Barry's prodding and poking of you. You take his bait every time. After all these years you still go for it. And she still believes that she's winning and scoring points every time she does it. It's a twisted little play that I hope never stops. Well, I wouldn't go that far. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yesterday saw a *great number* of people coming out of the woodwork with their theories of what motivates me and what kind of psychopath they believe I am. As I remember, the people who felt the need to pile on included Judy (of course), Shemp, Lawson, Jim, Nablus, and Michael. Willytex will pile on as soon as he logs on again. Look at that list of names. Based on what they write here, and the number of times they have been *excited* about something happening in their own lives, do ANY of them strike you as happy people? ANY of them? (Jim does seem to be the one in the list who has more of a real life than the others IMO, and since he is undoubtedly still reading FFL while pretending not to, I thought I should say this.) I would add that Michael seems to have a life, and a fairly happy one from my perspective, when his God buttons haven't been pushed enough to put him in overreaction mode. The others, really...not so much. I've never seen any indication from what they write here that they have much of a life at all, or at least not one that brings them very many moments of joy. I do not believe that I am alone in this perception.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
I gotta say, this pretty well encapsulizes the whole issue. Well written. Geez, you ought to consider writing policy statements --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak You know Judy, I've known Barry for nearly 30 years. It's more than 30 years actually (damn how time flies!). You are engaging in utter fantasy about him. Barry has an extremely keen sense of humor. He's one of the few people I've known who can truly get as much pleasure laughing at himself as someone else. If you think for one second that Barry is humilated by what Michael said you haven't learned a thing about him in all of these years of endless sparring. Tweaking you is sport to him. He amuses himself doing it. Barry (like me) likes to laugh and does not like to be bored. What makes many of your posts so damn boring and redundant is that you take yourself SO seriously. This particular episode started because a sharp intellect (Ruth) realized that debating with you is a dead end. A humorless dead end at that. She decided to leave FFL since you would respond even when she wasn't addressing you. She has better things to do than going around in cirlcles with your own special brand of madness. It isn't Barry needin help m'dear. It's you. I could care less whether you get it or not. In the meantime I'll enjoy (when I have time to check in) Barry's prodding and poking of you. You take his bait every time. After all these years you still go for it. It's a twisted little play that I hope never stops.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
Very thoughtful respnse. Not that my opinion counts for much. But, I will say that Judy pretty much nailed John Knapp. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip The humiliation of having Michael confirm what I said has just about driven Barry around the bend. If you consider yourself a friend of his, you ought to be helping him deal with it by gently drawing him closer to reality and reassuring him that he'll survive. You aren't doing him any favors by validating his fantasies. He's in enough trouble already. You know Judy, I've known Barry for nearly 30 years. It's more than 30 years actually (damn how time flies!). You are engaging in utter fantasy about him. Barry has an extremely keen sense of humor. He's one of the few people I've known who can truly get as much pleasure laughing at himself as someone else. Look, I know you have to defend him because he's your friend, but I've known him for almost 14 years now-- not as long as you have, and only via this medium-- but long enough to have a pretty clear idea of who he is. I have never *once* seen him laugh at himself. Maybe he does it in real life with people he's close to and not threatened by, but he has a need to present himself quite differently in this venue. And enough others over the years have validated my take on him, both in public and in private, for me to know I'm not indulging in some purely personal fantasy about him. He's one of the most mean-spirited, hypocritical, dishonest, ego-driven, angry, unhappy individuals I've ever encountered anywhere. If you think for one second that Barry is humilated by what Michael said you haven't learned a thing about him in all of these years of endless sparring. He's doing everything he can to avoid the appearance of humiliation, but the intensity of his reaction, and its very high fantasy quotient, gives it away. Tweaking you is sport to him. He amuses himself doing it. Barry (like me) likes to laugh and does not like to be bored. There's more than a desire to laugh behind his attacks on me (and others), Geeze. If you can't see that, you haven't been paying attention. Again, this is not just my take by a very long shot. There's something very deeply twisted about him. And you might want to read up on the psychology of boredom. It's not a benign symptom. But I agree with you that it's a big part of what's troubling him. What makes many of your posts so damn boring and redundant is that you take yourself SO seriously. This particular episode started because a sharp intellect (Ruth) realized that debating with you is a dead end. A humorless dead end at that. She decided to leave FFL since you would respond even when she wasn't addressing you. Well, of course I would, if she said something I wanted to comment on. That she decided she wasn't going to speak to me doesn't somehow mean I have to stop expressing my opinion about what she says. That's sort of like saying, You can't see me because I have my eyes closed. But there's no obligation whatsoever for her to respond, so the reason she gave is patently bogus. She did not cover herself with glory in the discussion we had about abduction experiences. She took a position at the outset--the one I initially commented on--and then felt she had to stick to it even though it became obvious she wasn't as well informed as she had thought. That's an unusual situation for her, and she didn't know how to handle it. She has better things to do than going around in cirlcles with your own special brand of madness. I consistently fail to be impressed by generalized accusations for which no evidence or examples are provided. It isn't Barry needin help m'dear. It's you. I could care less whether you get it or not. I think both of you need help, frankly. Enablers need treatment as well as those they enable. In the meantime I'll enjoy (when I have time to check in) Barry's prodding and poking of you. You take his bait every time. After all these years you still go for it. How interesting that you don't see the same thing on his side.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
lurker wrote: Very thoughtful respnse. So, it's all about Judy and Barry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [to Geeze:] Look, I know you have to defend him because he's your friend, but I've known him for almost 14 years now-- not as long as you have, and only via this medium-- but long enough to have a pretty clear idea of who he is. I have never *once* seen him laugh at himself. Maybe he does it in real life with people he's close to and not threatened by, but he has a need to present himself quite differently in this venue. He doesn't come over like that to me at all. I've seen humility in the guy on these pages many times. He's always the first to put his hand up when he makes a mistake, I'm sure if he was arrogant he wouldn't bother. You've apparently missed a substantial number of his mistakes. I'd say the ratio of mistakes made to mistakes acknowledged is about 50:1. And enough others over the years have validated my take on him, both in public and in private, for me to know I'm not indulging in some purely personal fantasy about him. He's one of the most mean-spirited, hypocritical, dishonest, ego-driven, angry, unhappy individuals I've ever encountered anywhere. I'm not writing this to have a go Judy, just as a different opinion from a different perspective. No problem, I take it as such. Usually I steer well clear of your arguments as I don't think they are any of my business and I've only been here a short time so I don't know the full in's and out's. That could make a major difference in how you perceive Barry. (And on a public forum, anything anybody posts is everybody's business. Whether you have any *interest* is a different question entirely.) And I don't feel I have to defend Barry at all, he's more than capable of looking after himself but I think your analysis here is way wide of the mark, maybe you're projecting most of this, I really don't know how you got into this state but it seems to be a hallmark of your online relationships. Can we admit that? I'm not sure what state you're referring to, so you'll have to elaborate before I can comment. But Judy, Mean spirited? I think the guy's all heart. Unhappy? A joke, surely. Dishonest? I don't know where you're getting this from. You know, I could write pages and pages with illustrative examples from his posts documenting meanspiritedness and dishonesty, among other traits. I can't document unhappy; it's just a very strong sense I (and others) have gotten. But happy people are not typically meanspirited and dishonest, etc. Maybe it all just boils down to the fact he doesn't like you. I've had hundreds of pleasant conversations with Barry about all sorts of things Barry has no problem making himself pleasant and likable to people he wants to like him. But try getting into a real argument with him, in which you strongly challenge his perspective and don't back down. You may see a different face entirely. , obviously we are similar in a lot of ways but I *don't* get the feeling that is the sole reason we get along. It would be boring if it was. And I agree whith Sal that anyone who blames Barry for them leaving is a bit of a sad case. But Barry (as well as Sal and Geeze) have no problem whatsoever blaming me for Ruth leaving. Do you see a bit of inconsistency there? People have *reasons* for leaving. That doesn't mean they're claiming they didn't leave of their own volition. Michael certainly didn't make such a claim, nor did Ruth. Maybe the real reason Jim left is because he couldn't answer Barry's tough questions? Barry's questions to Jim, IMHO, weren't tough, they were irrelevant. Barry wasn't making any attempt to grasp what Jim had been saying, so all he could come up with was non sequiturs. Jim tried over and over to get him on the right track but wasn't able to do so. Barry wasn't interested in having a discussion; all he wanted to do was put Jim down. My instinct is NOT to press send here I'm not writing this to be critical or in expectation of you, or anyone, liking the Barry but just to give you the idea that some see him differently to you and and Nabluss etc. Fine with me. I'd just suggest that if you really want to know why I see Barry as I do, you'll need to follow a few of our exchanges--both sides thereof --with attention. Or go back and read some of his diatribes against Nabby or Lawson or any of his favorite targets. His last exchange with Michael is pretty revealing as well. You might want to have a look at my response this morning to Barry's reply to Geeze (Barry's post is #184320). See whose characterization of recent exchanges you think is more accurate (you may have to go back and look at those exchanges if you don't remember exactly what went down). Or maybe his Negativity Ray (TM) and Literary Eloquence (TM) have blurred my brain too. Do you think the fact that in recent posts he's made a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
Barry and Geeze work very hard at finding a solution to their cognitive dissonance, rather unsuccessfully as far as any relation to reality is concerned: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: Turq, you know the irony about this entire conversation? If you recall, it all started because one of the brightest new lights in this group ruthsimplicity left and made no bones about the fact that she left because she had better things to do than waste another moment of her energy on one Judith Stein. Exactly. And Judy's response was to trot out the Lawson Response when confronted with something that the TMO does, But...but...but...these *other* guys do it, TOO. It was an I'm not guilty because this person over here is MORE guilty diversion ploy. Uh, no. It was to point out Barry's gross hypocrisy in accusing me of trying to drive people off the forum. I have never, *ever* tangled with somebody with the intention of making them leave. It wouldn't even occur to me. Barry does so routinely, especially with newbies who look like they're going to be TM supporters, or who just don't express themselves in a way he considers appropriate. He even explicitly encourages them to leave. Also note that Barry claims, often in the same post, both that I'm trying to drive someone off the forum, and that I'm trying to get them to argue with me. Why would I want to drive somebody away that I wanted to argue with? And it's just a total lie that I go after strong women in particular. Barry's well aware, for instance, that I was a cheerleader for Delia on alt.m.t, Delia being probably the strongest woman ever to post to either alt.m.t or FFL. She and I eventually fell out over politics, and in that instance *I* left alt.m.t because what I saw as her lack of compassion made me so angry. Barry is also well aware that I got along very well with Ruth until our disagreement over abduction experiences. The notion that *I* tried to distract attention from Ruth's leaving is ludicrous. Right after she left, I made a post explaining how I perceived the situation. Then Barry made a long post about me, addressed to Ruth, that was just *crammed* with knowing lies. I responded, correcting the record, *particularly* where my relationship with Ruth was concerned. (I did the same when Geeze tried to pretend he had emails from Ruth that showed I was lying about our relationship. Neither of them ever admitted their mistakes in that regard, of course.) Then, in response to Barry's lie about my attempting to drive strong women off any forum I was on, I pointed out how hypocritical it was for him to criticize me for driving people off when he's done the same thing more than anybody else. And in that connection I mentioned that we'd just lost a long-time poster because of his nastiness and dishonesty. Barry's responses to my post were simply more insults, no acknowledgment that he'd said anything that wasn't true. Then, a couple days later, he accused me of making up the part about the poster leaving, making a huge deal of something that had been just an aside in my post. *That* is what started the current brouhaha, not any attempt on my part to distract attention from Ruth's leaving. I'm happy to talk about that at any length with anybody who's interested.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tweaking you is sport to him. He amuses himself doing it. Exactly. I am the first to admit that it is not the most *admirable* sport in the world, but it gives me pleasure to twist her titties and see her squirm. Towards what end? To uplift? To help us, and yourself, to loosen identification with boundaries? To point out distortions that people cannot do them selves? To help clarify some things in your own mind? To explore new ideas?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
Do you think the fact that in recent posts he's made a point of telling you how much he likes you might have something to do with your positive opinion of him? (That's truly not intended as snark; I'm just calling your attention to something that may not have occurred to you. We're all inclined to think well of people who say they think well of us, moi included.) I'd like to use this for a launching pad for some meta-thoughts I've had about the dynamic here. I was a bit tweaked by Jim's parting shot at the quality of discussion here. I think the best response to not reading what interests you here is to get writing and stimulate responses that are more interesting. I suspect that the problem was that for Jim a certain assumption needed to be in place concerning his enlightenment and many here were unwilling to start with that assumption. I find people's internal state irrelevant to any discussion. And when we could go beyond the assumption that his insight was intrinsically more special (A charge he refuted explicitly, but then immediately would presume again. I think it was a blind spot.) Jim and I had some pleasant discussions. I think he was genuinely confused that he had a superiority tone and didn't understand why some would not want to interact under that premise of relationship. So liked parts of Jim and that was enough to keep the ball rolling occasionally. Same with Michael. We didn't share much in would view but he was willing to open up and let me see his a bit and I really enjoyed the ride and respected his ability to accept how far I was willing to go with it all. Ruth and I shared a comfort with each other's perspective. But ultimately I'm not sure her interest could be sustained here. I think she was genuinely interested in why people would hold some of the beliefs some people do here, and I remember when she first started interacting with Judy in fruitful discussions. I was sorry to see that fall apart whatever the reasons because I think they often brought out the best from each other. I don't blame Judy for that ultimately working not out. It was a fascinating unnatural mix and that interaction is the coolest thing that happens here IMO, but it is a fragile creature and unsustainable. Judy was being Judy and that either works for you or it doesn't. For Ruth it didn't in the end, but I'm sure her mind was not going to be fulfilled here after she had mined some of the groups richest intellectual veins a bit more. I think people who hang here are more into the process of what goes on there rather than the content. I miss her perspective. Judy and Turq love their war. I've already said I am gay for both of them, but the relationships are completely different. With Turq there is natural affection. We know the edges of where our beliefs don't line up but I can't imagine a reason for us to argue about any of it. We agree more than disagree, so keeping rapport is easy. But we have also taken some time to get to know each other in a bit more detail so our friendship online is more specific. I feel as if he has taken the effort to understand what is important to me and I have done the same. (how gay is that?) So even if we find something to disagree about in our world view it is in a context of friendliness. With Judy it is more of an understanding rather than a natural comfort. Having gotten bored with my own cartoonish view of her, I consciously tried to see who was behind the light saber and grew to appreciate her POV. Not share always, but appreciate and to my surprise sometimes learn from it. So now even though I can be a bit reactive and defensive with her, I am usually able to see something of value beyond my own touchiness in our interactions that I value. She has met me half way in this and it has allowed for some of the more fruitful discussions I have had here. I can't count on her defaulting to seeing me in the best light as I can with Turq. Every interaction is kind of an emotional clean slate with nothing assumed beforehand with her. It could always go either way. It is a bit edgy and fun. But both of them would prefer the all out war that engages them together to almost any other interaction here I think. I'm just going by the numbers of posts devoted to it. This may not really represent an emotional preference. Their joy in enhanced by their lack of seeing each other in a more 3 dimensional way. They love their anime co-created world. People who read it and freak out are just dealing with their own conflict issues IMO. It is optional, but if you choose to read it, you can often find some really entertaining verbal sparring from two creative, intelligent ( I am so gay) minds who are fully engaged in a Tarantino like script that they have honed to a high art. My natural affinity with Turq does not mean that in every exchange I take his side. Many times I am more in agreement with Judy's point. But never in the absolute way that she
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ Tweaking you is sport to him. He amuses himself doing it. Exactly. I am the first to admit that it is not the most *admirable* sport in the world, but it gives me pleasure to twist her titties and see her squirm. Damn 'bro, didja have to out it THAT way? (Where's that chit eraser I keep around here.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: [to Geeze:] Look, I know you have to defend him because he's your friend, but I've known him for almost 14 years now-- not as long as you have, and only via this medium-- but long enough to have a pretty clear idea of who he is. I have never *once* seen him laugh at himself. Maybe he does it in real life with people he's close to and not threatened by, but he has a need to present himself quite differently in this venue. He doesn't come over like that to me at all. I've seen humility in the guy on these pages many times. He's always the first to put his hand up when he makes a mistake, I'm sure if he was arrogant he wouldn't bother. You've apparently missed a substantial number of his mistakes. I'd say the ratio of mistakes made to mistakes acknowledged is about 50:1. And enough others over the years have validated my take on him, both in public and in private, for me to know I'm not indulging in some purely personal fantasy about him. He's one of the most mean-spirited, hypocritical, dishonest, ego-driven, angry, unhappy individuals I've ever encountered anywhere. I'm not writing this to have a go Judy, just as a different opinion from a different perspective. No problem, I take it as such. Usually I steer well clear of your arguments as I don't think they are any of my business and I've only been here a short time so I don't know the full in's and out's. That could make a major difference in how you perceive Barry. (And on a public forum, anything anybody posts is everybody's business. Whether you have any *interest* is a different question entirely.) And I don't feel I have to defend Barry at all, he's more than capable of looking after himself but I think your analysis here is way wide of the mark, maybe you're projecting most of this, I really don't know how you got into this state but it seems to be a hallmark of your online relationships. Can we admit that? I'm not sure what state you're referring to, so you'll have to elaborate before I can comment. But Judy, Mean spirited? I think the guy's all heart. Unhappy? A joke, surely. Dishonest? I don't know where you're getting this from. You know, I could write pages and pages with illustrative examples from his posts documenting meanspiritedness and dishonesty, among other traits. I can't document unhappy; it's just a very strong sense I (and others) have gotten. But happy people are not typically meanspirited and dishonest, etc. Maybe it all just boils down to the fact he doesn't like you. I've had hundreds of pleasant conversations with Barry about all sorts of things Barry has no problem making himself pleasant and likable to people he wants to like him. But try getting into a real argument with him, in which you strongly challenge his perspective and don't back down. You may see a different face entirely. , obviously we are similar in a lot of ways but I *don't* get the feeling that is the sole reason we get along. It would be boring if it was. And I agree whith Sal that anyone who blames Barry for them leaving is a bit of a sad case. But Barry (as well as Sal and Geeze) have no problem whatsoever blaming me for Ruth leaving. Do you see a bit of inconsistency there? People have *reasons* for leaving. That doesn't mean they're claiming they didn't leave of their own volition. Michael certainly didn't make such a claim, nor did Ruth. Maybe the real reason Jim left is because he couldn't answer Barry's tough questions? Barry's questions to Jim, IMHO, weren't tough, they were irrelevant. Barry wasn't making any attempt to grasp what Jim had been saying, so all he could come up with was non sequiturs. Jim tried over and over to get him on the right track but wasn't able to do so. Barry wasn't interested in having a discussion; all he wanted to do was put Jim down. My instinct is NOT to press send here I'm not writing this to be critical or in expectation of you, or anyone, liking the Barry but just to give you the idea that some see him differently to you and and Nabluss etc. Fine with me. I'd just suggest that if you really want to know why I see Barry as I do, you'll need to follow a few of our exchanges--both sides thereof --with attention. Or go back and read some of his diatribes against Nabby or Lawson or any of his favorite targets. His last exchange with Michael is pretty revealing as well. You might want to have a look at my response this morning to Barry's reply to Geeze (Barry's post is #184320). See whose characterization of recent exchanges you think is more accurate (you may have to go back and look at those exchanges if you don't
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo Do you think the fact that in recent posts he's made a point of telling you how much he likes you might have something to do with your positive opinion of him? (That's truly not intended as snark; I'm just calling your attention to something that may not have occurred to you. We're all inclined to think well of people who say they think well of us, moi included.) No, that isn't snarky. It's an interesting idea, and perhaps not unreasonable, but I'd say not because I've always liked reading his stuff and might have given up my early and sad attempts at posting here but for the pleasure of reading things like his FF as Jazz one and the challenge to actually try and write something inspiring about why we got into this spiritual lark in the first place. Not that I think you and everyone else have nothing to say of course, quite the opposite, there are plenty of people who I would hate to miss what they have to say on things. I don't know about you but it took me ages to find my posting feet and without a bit of early encou- ragement from Barry I might have slipped away unnoticed. Gee, I hope no-one holds *that* against him.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barry and Geeze work very hard at finding a solution . Why would I want to drive somebody away that I wanted to argue with? She and I eventually fell out over politics, and in that instance *I* left alt.m.t because what I saw as her lack of compassion made me so angry. Judy Stein in a nut shell.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
I um resonate with a lot of what you say, and you have articulated some things well, though I have my own take on some of the dynamics. Comments below. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you think the fact that in recent posts he's made a point of telling you how much he likes you might have something to do with your positive opinion of him? (That's truly not intended as snark; I'm just calling your attention to something that may not have occurred to you. We're all inclined to think well of people who say they think well of us, moi included.) I think this can happen -- though I think Curtis has immunized himself fairly well. I appreciated the individual POV, not a herd mentality. Piling on may be appropriate sometimes -- but becomes cliche and apparently not richly thought out if its the same posses piling on and up against each other each time. I'd like to use this for a launching pad for some meta-thoughts I've had about the dynamic here. I was a bit tweaked by Jim's parting shot at the quality of discussion here. Tweaking and being tweaked can by a bilateral dynamic -- or quite unilateeral -- in that a tweekee may be tweaked by words not intended to tweak (thus not by a tweaker.) And a tweaker, there are card carrying ones here -- can only get someone tweaked if the tweakee takes the tweak bait. I think the best response to not reading what interests you here is to get writing and stimulate responses that are more interesting. I suspect that the problem was that for Jim a certain assumption needed to be in place concerning his enlightenment and many here were unwilling to start with that assumption. I find people's internal state irrelevant to any discussion. And when we could go beyond the assumption that his insight was intrinsically more special (A charge he refuted explicitly, but then immediately would presume again. I think it was a blind spot.) I agree with the manifestation at times of Jim's dynamic You are all ignorant, I am all knowing .. but I am not saying I am better than you. But in the last month or so, Jim seemed to transcend that boundary / blind-spot a bit. And devoid of that, his perspective could at times be fresh and original -- not a cliche TMO or neo-whatever response. YMMV. While not agreeing always, I liked having a new perspective thrown into the ring. ... But both of them would prefer the all out war that engages them together to almost any other interaction here I think. I'm just going by the numbers of posts devoted to it. This may not really represent an emotional preference. Their joy in enhanced by their lack of seeing each other in a more 3 dimensional way. They love their anime co-created world. People who read it and freak out are just dealing with their own conflict issues IMO. It is optional, but if you choose to read it, you can often find some really entertaining verbal sparring from two creative, intelligent ( I am so gay) minds who are fully engaged in a Tarantino like script that they have honed to a high art. I usually tune out. But at times, a snippet of argument and counter argument can be an interesting 'sunday paper puzzle -- both sides' views, taken alone, seems reasonable -- but upon longer gaze, it appears they are not dealing with the same perceptions of reality. And I don't have the time nor inclination to sort things out. So it becomes pretty meaningless to me. So, I move on, ignore almost all posts that start What Judy/Barry is REALLY saying/feeling/motivated by Does anyone actually read more than 1/100 of these spite-fests? if so WHY? Really. I am sincerely curious. And if no on is reading them, why don't they just take that part of their discourse off-line. It does have a high cost (see later) and low value, to anyone, it appears. I have said, i don't believe that anyone here has demonstrated clear mind-reading skill -- yet some posters seem deluded, IMO, in believing strongly that they do. To me, that huge blind spot carries over to their other writing -- if they believe such fantastical things as that they can clearly read minds, then some of their other stuff may be infused with such crap too So, its my habit to often skip more than just range war posts of theirs. And this is not exclusive to Turq and Judy -- we have a number of perenial spiteful range wars raging at times. So should they see each other in a more friendly way, taking the time to get to know the good parts of each other in an Ecstasy fueled rave love fest bringing a spirit of Kumbaya to FFL and through it to the whole world? HELL NO! Ecstacy-fueled rave? Could be cool. As long as you guys slug it out I will be an occasional fan at the match and for those people who find this too much heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen. As woody allen said I have trouble with authority figures. This is not Darfur, this is two writers who
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you think the fact that in recent posts he's made a point of telling you how much he likes you might have something to do with your positive opinion of him? (That's truly not intended as snark; I'm just calling your attention to something that may not have occurred to you. We're all inclined to think well of people who say they think well of us, moi included.) I'd like to use this for a launching pad for some meta-thoughts I've had about the dynamic here. I was a bit tweaked by Jim's parting shot at the quality of discussion here. I think the best response to not reading what interests you here is to get writing and stimulate responses that are more interesting. I suspect that the problem was that for Jim a certain assumption needed to be in place concerning his enlightenment and many here were unwilling to start with that assumption. I find people's internal state irrelevant to any discussion. And when we could go beyond the assumption that his insight was intrinsically more special (A charge he refuted explicitly, but then immediately would presume again. I think it was a blind spot.) Jim and I had some pleasant discussions. I think he was genuinely confused that he had a superiority tone and didn't understand why some would not want to interact under that premise of relationship. So liked parts of Jim and that was enough to keep the ball rolling occasionally. Same with Michael. We didn't share much in would view but he was willing to open up and let me see his a bit and I really enjoyed the ride and respected his ability to accept how far I was willing to go with it all. Ruth and I shared a comfort with each other's perspective. But ultimately I'm not sure her interest could be sustained here. I think she was genuinely interested in why people would hold some of the beliefs some people do here, and I remember when she first started interacting with Judy in fruitful discussions. I was sorry to see that fall apart whatever the reasons because I think they often brought out the best from each other. I don't blame Judy for that ultimately working not out. It was a fascinating unnatural mix and that interaction is the coolest thing that happens here IMO, but it is a fragile creature and unsustainable. Judy was being Judy and that either works for you or it doesn't. For Ruth it didn't in the end, but I'm sure her mind was not going to be fulfilled here after she had mined some of the groups richest intellectual veins a bit more. I think people who hang here are more into the process of what goes on there rather than the content. I miss her perspective. Judy and Turq love their war. I've already said I am gay for both of them, but the relationships are completely different. With Turq there is natural affection. We know the edges of where our beliefs don't line up but I can't imagine a reason for us to argue about any of it. We agree more than disagree, so keeping rapport is easy. But we have also taken some time to get to know each other in a bit more detail so our friendship online is more specific. I feel as if he has taken the effort to understand what is important to me and I have done the same. (how gay is that?) So even if we find something to disagree about in our world view it is in a context of friendliness. With Judy it is more of an understanding rather than a natural comfort. Having gotten bored with my own cartoonish view of her, I consciously tried to see who was behind the light saber and grew to appreciate her POV. Not share always, but appreciate and to my surprise sometimes learn from it. So now even though I can be a bit reactive and defensive with her, I am usually able to see something of value beyond my own touchiness in our interactions that I value. She has met me half way in this and it has allowed for some of the more fruitful discussions I have had here. I can't count on her defaulting to seeing me in the best light as I can with Turq. Every interaction is kind of an emotional clean slate with nothing assumed beforehand with her. It could always go either way. It is a bit edgy and fun. But both of them would prefer the all out war that engages them together to almost any other interaction here I think. I'm just going by the numbers of posts devoted to it. This may not really represent an emotional preference. Their joy in enhanced by their lack of seeing each other in a more 3 dimensional way. They love their anime co-created world. People who read it and freak out are just dealing with their own conflict issues IMO. It is optional, but if you choose to read it, you can often find some really entertaining verbal sparring from two creative, intelligent ( I am so gay) minds who are fully engaged in a Tarantino like script that they have honed to a high art. My natural
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
What I have seen directly, and infer also (which may be overblown -- or underblown), that a lot of good people, with good insights, experience, history in the TMO and other movements, knowlege and POV's -- simple leave -- usually for good -- when FFL becomes petty squabble-fest'. Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail. I had hoped my post would stimulate a meta discussion. I think the place is an acquired taste, but any person who comes in with their eyes on how other people should behave here is focusing on the wrong side of the screen. It is a choice in life to just focus on your own contribution and not expect that other people will change. I agree completely about your point about being tweeked by a poster, it is a choice. One of the most valuable things I have learned by posting here is to keep my eye on my own balls (that came out badly and yet so perfectly at the same time didn't it?) People posting here have little time for foreplay. That gives a bit of a harsh vibe sometimes. Anyone posting with an expectation that the group will be wowed by any insight phrased in spiritual group babble will get a collective raspberry, and I think that is a good thing. You have to approach this group with a bit of respect that most people here have been around a block or two. But I think most people leave for their own reasons, not because of what other people do here. I am kinda sick of people pointing fingers about how bad things are here without just writing a bunch of better shit. Ruth said she left because she couldn't keep her own code of not responding to someone (guesses?) not that someone shouldn't post as she does. That is a way to own the fact that it wasn't working for her here rather than tell us we all suck. I agree with your point about Jim's last posting incarnation. He did seem more genuinely committed to connecting and was very cool with me which I appreciated. There was a real endearing side of him I will miss. Nice one New. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I um resonate with a lot of what you say, and you have articulated some things well, though I have my own take on some of the dynamics. Comments below. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Do you think the fact that in recent posts he's made a point of telling you how much he likes you might have something to do with your positive opinion of him? (That's truly not intended as snark; I'm just calling your attention to something that may not have occurred to you. We're all inclined to think well of people who say they think well of us, moi included.) I think this can happen -- though I think Curtis has immunized himself fairly well. I appreciated the individual POV, not a herd mentality. Piling on may be appropriate sometimes -- but becomes cliche and apparently not richly thought out if its the same posses piling on and up against each other each time. I'd like to use this for a launching pad for some meta-thoughts I've had about the dynamic here. I was a bit tweaked by Jim's parting shot at the quality of discussion here. Tweaking and being tweaked can by a bilateral dynamic -- or quite unilateeral -- in that a tweekee may be tweaked by words not intended to tweak (thus not by a tweaker.) And a tweaker, there are card carrying ones here -- can only get someone tweaked if the tweakee takes the tweak bait. I think the best response to not reading what interests you here is to get writing and stimulate responses that are more interesting. I suspect that the problem was that for Jim a certain assumption needed to be in place concerning his enlightenment and many here were unwilling to start with that assumption. I find people's internal state irrelevant to any discussion. And when we could go beyond the assumption that his insight was intrinsically more special (A charge he refuted explicitly, but then immediately would presume again. I think it was a blind spot.) I agree with the manifestation at times of Jim's dynamic You are all ignorant, I am all knowing .. but I am not saying I am better than you. But in the last month or so, Jim seemed to transcend that boundary / blind-spot a bit. And devoid of that, his perspective could at times be fresh and original -- not a cliche TMO or neo-whatever response. YMMV. While not agreeing always, I liked having a new perspective thrown into the ring. ... But both of them would prefer the all out war that engages them together to almost any other interaction here I think. I'm just going by the numbers of posts devoted to it. This may not really represent an emotional preference. Their joy in enhanced by their lack of seeing each other in a more 3 dimensional way. They love their anime co-created world. People who read it and freak out are just dealing with their
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: You know, I could write pages and pages with illustrative examples from his posts documenting meanspiritedness and dishonesty, among other traits. I can't document unhappy; it's just a very strong sense I (and others) have gotten. But happy people are not typically meanspirited and dishonest, etc. Judy, I don't believe that you could really write pages and pages with illustrative examples of Barry's meanspiritedness and dishonesty. One or two pages won't do it. I want to see pages and pages with illustrative examples.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: You know, I could write pages and pages with illustrative examples from his posts documenting meanspiritedness and dishonesty, among other traits. I can't document unhappy; it's just a very strong sense I (and others) have gotten. But happy people are not typically meanspirited and dishonest, etc. Judy, I don't believe that you could really write pages and pages with illustrative examples of Barry's meanspiritedness and dishonesty. One or two pages won't do it. I want to see pages and pages with illustrative examples. I probably won't get around to compiling a separate document any time soon, but actually, all you'd have to do would be to go back over the traffic and read my posts about Barry. I'd guess there's something close to 100 pages by now. And then probably at least another 300 pages' worth from alt.m.t. Virtually all with illustrative examples. You could start with the post I just put up, titled Putting Barry to his own test.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I have seen directly, and infer also (which may be overblown -- or underblown), that a lot of good people, with good insights, experience, history in the TMO and other movements, knowlege and POV's -- simple leave -- usually for good -- when FFL becomes petty squabble-fest'. Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail. I had hoped my post would stimulate a meta discussion. I think the place is an acquired taste, but any person who comes in with their eyes on how other people should behave here is focusing on the wrong side of the screen. It is a choice in life to just focus on your own contribution and not expect that other people will change. I agree completely about your point about being tweeked by a poster, it is a choice. One of the most valuable things I have learned by posting here is to keep my eye on my own balls (that came out badly and yet so perfectly at the same time didn't it?) Good one. But eyes on the prize -- and not getting flapped by crazy shit is a good lesson / exercise / gauntlet here at times. If you can keep your head when all about you are losing their's and blaming it on you .. People posting here have little time for foreplay. That gives a bit of a harsh vibe sometimes. Which in many cases we would not do in real life. Even, or especially with good friends, particularly significant others, a bit of gentle transition and context helps -- especially when you are ultimately saying your idea is really fucked up. There is a trap at times when one (me at least) assumes the other person understands and gets my baseline respect for them, and agreement on many ideas, and appreciation of their insights -- and with that assumption, I can and have com out guns blazing on ONE idea. It can come across as an across the board personal attack. (So flimsy and fragile our egos be.) So, a little foreplay can be good, IMO. (Though you may have seen in the second season of Weeds, the really hot admistrator at the hebrew school said, yes, we are hitting it off. but I am not attracted to you. You are not strong and bold like a real man. You would never come up to me, slam me against the wall, and fuck me until I came like a volcano -- but like holden C, I digress) Anyone posting with an expectation that the group will be wowed by any insight phrased in spiritual group babble will get a collective raspberry, and I think that is a good thing. i agree with that -- but thats not what i an referring to. I am referring to some people who come, don't say anything, or much, have no agenda, don't demand respect, don't from the getgo have a large list of things we should change -- yet are appalled by the range wars - -an move on. And I know that for a fact because I read their minds! :) OK, well, I have inferred it from numerous pieces of evidence. (And I might be wrong.) ((['yeah right!' and pigs could fly out my butt'.))] Did I say that or just think it? I am NOT talking about the Brontes and Shunyaettas who come in and in their second post start telling the group what a mess we all are --and heres's how to fit it -- you fucked-up morons. Such primadonna types are not a real boost to FFL, IMO. You have to approach this group with a bit of respect that most people here have been around a block or two. But I think most people leave for their own reasons, not because of what other people do here. I disagree. But we may be referring to different things. Per above, I think people see chaos, yelling about nothing, pettiness, spite, and rage and think, Spiritual group? Ha! good one! and move on. On the other hand, I think some people who feel picked on and leave -- thats their business and skin-depth. I am kinda sick of people pointing fingers about how bad things are here without just writing a bunch of better shit. Since you are responding to a post where I point fingers about how bad things are here, I sort of weakly assume you may might also be including me (because, ya know, its all about me :)) I write lots of stuff that interest me -- hopefully others too -- but I only have influence on the former (hitting the target on my interests and inquiries) not in fulfilling the reading pleasure of others. And for example, to me, T3rinity contributed a lot of great stuff - very unique (for here) in travel, cultural knowledge, other traditions, etc. So to me, he did write a lot of better stuff. That he got tweaked by a tweaker maybe is a life lesson for him. Or maybe he just said the wading slime is is not worth the rare clearer water and had better things to do with his time. [Though I didn't follow all of his last discussion with turq. I am sure turq had some valid points, but in what I read, IMO, he was coming on a bit strong -- for my tastes -- and I can see where t3rintiy might have thrown up his arms. ] Ruth said she left because she couldn't keep her
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
On Jul 20, 2008, at 12:43 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: People posting here have little time for foreplay. That gives a bit of a harsh vibe sometimes. Anyone posting with an expectation that the group will be wowed by any insight phrased in spiritual group babble will get a collective raspberry, and I think that is a good thing. You have to approach this group with a bit of respect that most people here have been around a block or two. But I think most people leave for their own reasons, not because of what other people do here. I am kinda sick of people pointing fingers about how bad things are here without just writing a bunch of better shit. Ruth said she left because she couldn't keep her own code of not responding to someone (guesses?) not that someone shouldn't post as she does. That is a way to own the fact that it wasn't working for her here rather than tell us we all suck. Which we all do, of course. I'll say it, even if Ruth was too polite. :) Really, I think a lot of what goes on with new people coming in and trying to clean up the place, as wit were, is pretty much just disguised authoritarianism. (Wow! That was a long one.) Which, needless to say, won't win many new converts here. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Michael, you CLAIM that they are not yours. You suffer from the same dis-ease as Judy, in that you cannot conceive of anyone's assessment of you and your motives that differs from your own being correct or valid. If they don't see you and your motives and your trends the way you do, they are WRONG. I think my assessments of your actions and your motives are correct, and I stand by them. Hmmm... So when you perceive something that Michael denies, you're right and he's wrong, but when I perceive something about Curtis, I'm wrong and he's right? Goodness. I'm right FOR ME. I can see why he believes what he says, it's just that *I* don't believe what he says. For me it's all about ACTIONS. When those actions do not correspond with what the person claims that he (or she) is doing, then I tend to dis- believe the person who is making the claims. My view of them isn't right in any cosmic sense, not The Truth; it's just the way I see that person. What Michael didn't like was me SAYING how I see him. He tended to go ballistic when I presented a view of him, his consistent overreactions to certain hot button issues when they came up, and his motives FOR overreating to them. He wanted me to believe HIS version, and got upset when I didn't. I *understand* that's how he sees himself. It's just not the way that *I* see him. He couldn't live with that, so he bailed. I don't buy all of YOUR claims about why you do the things you do on a consistent basis, either, and say so. But you manage to hang in here anyway. In my book, that puts you on a higher plane than Michael. Funny, I was just thinking (really!) that hanging in a group like this was just about the least productive thing I could be doing, and was evidence that I was NOT on a higher plane or whatever... Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
Okay. That was the post of the week. (maybe the month) One thing I want to add. As soon as someone expresses some doubt as to whether they can continue posting here, their days are numbered. It happens every time. Ruth indicated at some point that she was on the fence whether she could continue posting here. Well fuck her and fuck Edg when he would make the same veiled threat. What they are saying is, Okay group, you need to modify the conversation here if you want me to stay To Edg's credit he went out without some lame parting shot. Ruth went out in a pretty classy way, putting the blame on herself in not being able to handle Judy. But I think we saw that coming. She always let us know that we were on thin ice. The tone here changed irrevecably when alt.med came on board. Many would say that the group lost much of its charm and uniqueness which was then replaced with pettiness and bickering. In particular, the feud Posting limits were instituted, and that has helped. Also it cut down on Lawson's incessant, obsessive posting. As I see it, the truffles here are buried under a little more dirt, and we don't see them as often, but enough of them appear to keep me interested. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you think the fact that in recent posts he's made a point of telling you how much he likes you might have something to do with your positive opinion of him? (That's truly not intended as snark; I'm just calling your attention to something that may not have occurred to you. We're all inclined to think well of people who say they think well of us, moi included.) I'd like to use this for a launching pad for some meta-thoughts I've had about the dynamic here. I was a bit tweaked by Jim's parting shot at the quality of discussion here. I think the best response to not reading what interests you here is to get writing and stimulate responses that are more interesting. I suspect that the problem was that for Jim a certain assumption needed to be in place concerning his enlightenment and many here were unwilling to start with that assumption. I find people's internal state irrelevant to any discussion. And when we could go beyond the assumption that his insight was intrinsically more special (A charge he refuted explicitly, but then immediately would presume again. I think it was a blind spot.) Jim and I had some pleasant discussions. I think he was genuinely confused that he had a superiority tone and didn't understand why some would not want to interact under that premise of relationship. So liked parts of Jim and that was enough to keep the ball rolling occasionally. Same with Michael. We didn't share much in would view but he was willing to open up and let me see his a bit and I really enjoyed the ride and respected his ability to accept how far I was willing to go with it all. Ruth and I shared a comfort with each other's perspective. But ultimately I'm not sure her interest could be sustained here. I think she was genuinely interested in why people would hold some of the beliefs some people do here, and I remember when she first started interacting with Judy in fruitful discussions. I was sorry to see that fall apart whatever the reasons because I think they often brought out the best from each other. I don't blame Judy for that ultimately working not out. It was a fascinating unnatural mix and that interaction is the coolest thing that happens here IMO, but it is a fragile creature and unsustainable. Judy was being Judy and that either works for you or it doesn't. For Ruth it didn't in the end, but I'm sure her mind was not going to be fulfilled here after she had mined some of the groups richest intellectual veins a bit more. I think people who hang here are more into the process of what goes on there rather than the content. I miss her perspective. Judy and Turq love their war. I've already said I am gay for both of them, but the relationships are completely different. With Turq there is natural affection. We know the edges of where our beliefs don't line up but I can't imagine a reason for us to argue about any of it. We agree more than disagree, so keeping rapport is easy. But we have also taken some time to get to know each other in a bit more detail so our friendship online is more specific. I feel as if he has taken the effort to understand what is important to me and I have done the same. (how gay is that?) So even if we find something to disagree about in our world view it is in a context of friendliness. With Judy it is more of an understanding rather than a natural comfort. Having gotten bored with my own cartoonish view of her, I consciously tried to see who was behind the light saber and grew to appreciate her POV. Not share always, but appreciate and to my surprise sometimes learn from it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay. That was the post of the week. (maybe the month) One thing I want to add. Hey Steve, thanks. I know you care about this thought venue as I do. Early on in my posting here your positive comments set a tone for how how I thought of the place. You continue to do that for me. As soon as someone expresses some doubt as to whether they can continue posting here, their days are numbered. It happens every time. Ruth indicated at some point that she was on the fence whether she could continue posting here. Well fuck her and fuck Edg when he would make the same veiled threat. What they are saying is, Okay group, you need to modify the conversation here if you want me to stay To Edg's credit he went out without some lame parting shot. Ruth went out in a pretty classy way, putting the blame on herself in not being able to handle Judy. But I think we saw that coming. She always let us know that we were on thin ice. The tone here changed irrevecably when alt.med came on board. Many would say that the group lost much of its charm and uniqueness which was then replaced with pettiness and bickering. In particular, the feud Posting limits were instituted, and that has helped. Also it cut down on Lawson's incessant, obsessive posting. As I see it, the truffles here are buried under a little more dirt, and we don't see them as often, but enough of them appear to keep me interested. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Do you think the fact that in recent posts he's made a point of telling you how much he likes you might have something to do with your positive opinion of him? (That's truly not intended as snark; I'm just calling your attention to something that may not have occurred to you. We're all inclined to think well of people who say they think well of us, moi included.) I'd like to use this for a launching pad for some meta-thoughts I've had about the dynamic here. I was a bit tweaked by Jim's parting shot at the quality of discussion here. I think the best response to not reading what interests you here is to get writing and stimulate responses that are more interesting. I suspect that the problem was that for Jim a certain assumption needed to be in place concerning his enlightenment and many here were unwilling to start with that assumption. I find people's internal state irrelevant to any discussion. And when we could go beyond the assumption that his insight was intrinsically more special (A charge he refuted explicitly, but then immediately would presume again. I think it was a blind spot.) Jim and I had some pleasant discussions. I think he was genuinely confused that he had a superiority tone and didn't understand why some would not want to interact under that premise of relationship. So liked parts of Jim and that was enough to keep the ball rolling occasionally. Same with Michael. We didn't share much in would view but he was willing to open up and let me see his a bit and I really enjoyed the ride and respected his ability to accept how far I was willing to go with it all. Ruth and I shared a comfort with each other's perspective. But ultimately I'm not sure her interest could be sustained here. I think she was genuinely interested in why people would hold some of the beliefs some people do here, and I remember when she first started interacting with Judy in fruitful discussions. I was sorry to see that fall apart whatever the reasons because I think they often brought out the best from each other. I don't blame Judy for that ultimately working not out. It was a fascinating unnatural mix and that interaction is the coolest thing that happens here IMO, but it is a fragile creature and unsustainable. Judy was being Judy and that either works for you or it doesn't. For Ruth it didn't in the end, but I'm sure her mind was not going to be fulfilled here after she had mined some of the groups richest intellectual veins a bit more. I think people who hang here are more into the process of what goes on there rather than the content. I miss her perspective. Judy and Turq love their war. I've already said I am gay for both of them, but the relationships are completely different. With Turq there is natural affection. We know the edges of where our beliefs don't line up but I can't imagine a reason for us to argue about any of it. We agree more than disagree, so keeping rapport is easy. But we have also taken some time to get to know each other in a bit more detail so our friendship online is more specific. I feel as if he has taken the effort to understand what is important to me and I have done the same. (how gay is that?) So even if we
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As always I enjoy all of your posts on FFL, and often find them entertaining and to the point. Just to put to rest Barry's fiction that I left FFL because of him, I decided to go simply because there was nothing more for me to say. FFL in my opinion has become mostly a bunch of people saying the same old tired things against the TMO and Maharishi and the TM technique. Not at all what it used to be - very little knowledge there now. You may share this if you want to. All the Best and please stay in touch, Jim Actually, it wasn't my fiction but my speculation, spurred by Judy's refusal to back up a claim that she made. As I said in the speculation, claiming that you left because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty didn't sound like you at all. It sounded like something that Judy would make up. As it turns out, it was. I have in my hands a list of 205 [government employees] that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department. -- Senator Joseph McCarthy, 1950 The list was never made available to the Secy of State, or to anyone else. McCarthy later claimed that he could not reveal it because he had to protect a communication from a private source, exactly the same argument used by Judy Stein when refusing to back up the following quote: We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. -- Judy, 17 July 2008 Photo of Joe: http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/02/04/icon_topic3_feb4,0.jpg Photo of Judy: http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/4c65?b=27
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Actually, it wasn't my fiction but my speculation, spurred by Judy's refusal to back up a claim that she made. As I said in the speculation, claiming that you left because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty didn't sound like you at all. It sounded like something that Judy would make up. As it turns out, it was. I never claimed Jim left because of your nastiness and dishonesty. Barry, you're descending deeper and deeper into your own fantasy world. At some point soon, it's going to become impossible for you to come back. Get some help before it's too late.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Actually, it wasn't my fiction but my speculation, spurred by Judy's refusal to back up a claim that she made. As I said in the speculation, claiming that you left because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty didn't sound like you at all. It sounded like something that Judy would make up. As it turns out, it was. I never claimed Jim left because of your nastiness and dishonesty. And I never claimed you did. As you're so fond of saying, Go back and read what I really wrote. Based on hearing from Alex that Jim had unsubscribed, I *speculated* that it might have been him you were talking about. I then went on to explicitly say in the orig- inal post that I didn't believe that Jim would have said that he left because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. I said that that did not sound like him, and that I thought you'd made it up. As it turns out, you made it up about some other person, not Jim. :-) I have in my hands a list of 205 [government employees] that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department. -- Senator Joseph McCarthy, 1950 The list was never made available to the Secy of State, or to anyone else. McCarthy later claimed that he could not reveal it because he had to protect a communication from a private source, exactly the same argument used by Judy Stein when refusing to back up the following quote: We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. -- Judy, 17 July 2008 Photo of Joe: http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/02/04/icon_topic3_feb4,0.jpg Photo of Judy: http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/4c65?b=27
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: snip Actually, it wasn't my fiction but my speculation, spurred by Judy's refusal to back up a claim that she made. As I said in the speculation, claiming that you left because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty didn't sound like you at all. It sounded like something that Judy would make up. As it turns out, it was. I never claimed Jim left because of your nastiness and dishonesty. And I never claimed you did. As you're so fond of saying, Go back and read what I really wrote. Yeah, that's what you claimed. You read it again. Based on hearing from Alex that Jim had unsubscribed, I *speculated* that it might have been him you were talking about. I then went on to explicitly say in the orig- inal post that I didn't believe that Jim would have said that he left because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. I said that that did not sound like him, and that I thought you'd made it up. As it turns out, you made it up about some other person, not Jim. :-) Not made up, sorry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Based on hearing from Alex that Jim had unsubscribed, I *speculated* that it might have been him you were talking about. I then went on to explicitly say in the orig- inal post that I didn't believe that Jim would have said that he left because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. I said that that did not sound like him, and that I thought you'd made it up. As it turns out, you made it up about some other person, not Jim. :-) Not made up, sorry. Ah, but it is. I and everyone here have the right to assume that it IS made up until such time as you can prove that it is not. In this situation, you are in the same category as Joseph McCarthy with *his* claims that *he* refused to back up. (However, Joe might have had more credibility than you.) I have in my hands a list of 205 [government employees] that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department. -- Senator Joseph McCarthy, 1950 The list was never made available to the Secy of State, or to anyone else. McCarthy later claimed that he could not reveal it because he had to protect a communication from a private source, exactly the same argument used by Judy Stein when refusing to back up the following quote: We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. -- Judy, 17 July 2008 Photo of Joe: http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/02/04/icon_topic3_feb4,0.jpg Photo of Judy: http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/4c65?b=27
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Based on hearing from Alex that Jim had unsubscribed, I *speculated* that it might have been him you were talking about. I then went on to explicitly say in the orig- inal post that I didn't believe that Jim would have said that he left because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. I said that that did not sound like him, and that I thought you'd made it up. As it turns out, you made it up about some other person, not Jim. :-) Not made up, sorry. Ah, but it is. I and everyone here have the right to assume that it IS made up You have the right to believe whatever you wish and to state your beliefs as such. Ethically, you do not have the right to state your beliefs as though they were established fact, as you did above. (But of course you'll continue to do so anyway, because you have no ethical principles.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As always I enjoy all of your posts on FFL, and often find them entertaining and to the point. Just to put to rest Barry's fiction that I left FFL because of him, I decided to go simply because there was nothing more for me to say. FFL in my opinion has become mostly a bunch of people saying the same old tired things against the TMO and Maharishi and the TM technique. Not at all what it used to be - very little knowledge there now. You may share this if you want to. All the Best and please stay in touch, Jim Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: You may also share this if you want: I left because of Barry, yes, and I communicated this to Judy. I am not sure if Judy had me in mind, but it is certainly true. If anybody thinks that this is an overeaction, or is interested, you can look at the last post Barry wrote to one of my posts, and then compare it to the original post. To cut it short, Barry draws a number of conclusions out of my posts about my alleged opinions, which are in no way written there, and which I had made clear to him before, that they are not mine. I came to the decission that I would have to go into another round of what I actually think, and what I said, in opposition of what he declares me of having said. If anyone is interested - which I doubt, you can look. So I was simply tired of this game. My reaction my be right or wrong, you may call me thinskinned, I am simply being honest to you. Why should I leave only for one person? Well, for one thing I knew him online for a longer time than many others here. Second, I feel he has a certain degree of support in the group, and he tries to dominate it, by his literary eloquence. This seems to count more here than logical argument. There is a certain casualness in the group which I find alienating. Maybe the group is simply too big. There is a certain amount of negativity and sarcasm penetrating the group - I can live without it. Now let me say that I have also had fruitful discussions here, and there are certainly people here that I respect and like a lot. I also had nice exchanges with Barry in the past, I even had an email exchange with him not too long ago, which was very nice and on a friendly basis. I used to think that if we would meet in person, we could have a nice and very interesting talk. But our last exchanges made me feel otherwise - I may be right, I may be wrong, but I have no interest anymore. I just feel a wall of negativity descending on me in almost all of his posts. About Judy I can say that she has a remarkable intellectual power, and that she was always interpreting me right. Maybe I expressed myself unclearly or too abstract, she could always say what I had meant. That doesn't mean I agree with everything she says - after all I am following a very different way since more than 20 years - but its a capacity of understanding and intuition which is remarkable - yes right not just intellectual scrutinity, but also intuition. I largely agree with what Jim wrote. Jim was one of the few perls on this forum. I have been off and on again, so people may not notice I unsubscribed. I must also admit that I had unscubscribed one time before. I only inscribed myself again after MMY's death and funeral. I wanted to give some information to some people here.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Based on hearing from Alex that Jim had unsubscribed, I *speculated* that it might have been him you were talking about. I then went on to explicitly say in the orig- inal post that I didn't believe that Jim would have said that he left because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. I said that that did not sound like him, and that I thought you'd made it up. As it turns out, you made it up about some other person, not Jim. :-) Not made up, sorry. Ah, but it is. I and everyone here have the right to assume that it IS made up You have the right to believe whatever you wish and to state your beliefs as such. Ethically, you do not have the right to state your beliefs as though they were established fact, as you did above. Ethically, schmethically. I said that you made it all up because as far as I (or any- one else here) can tell, you DID make it all up. That IS a fact unless you can prove that it is not. If more people had called Joseph McCarthy when he did what you tried to do, that whole lamentable period of history wouldn't have happened. He made it all up, and you made it all up. I have in my hands a list of 205 [government employees] that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department. -- Senator Joseph McCarthy, 1950 The list was never made available to the Secy of State, or to anyone else. McCarthy later claimed that he could not reveal it because he had to protect a communication from a private source, exactly the same argument used by Judy Stein when refusing to back up the following quote: We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. -- Judy, 17 July 2008 Photo of Joe: http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/02/04/icon_topic3_feb4,0.jpg Photo of Judy: http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/photos/view/4c65?b=27
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: You may also share this if you want: I left because of Barry, yes, and I communicated this to Judy. I am not sure if Judy had me in mind, but it is certainly true. Ah, I *knew* that if I kept associating Judy with McCarthy she'd email the person in question. Glad you decided to say what you think in front of people's backs for a change, Michael. :-) If anybody thinks that this is an overeaction, or is interested, you can look at the last post Barry wrote to one of my posts, and then compare it to the original post. To cut it short, Barry draws a number of conclusions out of my posts about my alleged opinions, which are in no way written there, and which I had made clear to him before, that they are not mine. Michael, you CLAIM that they are not yours. You suffer from the same dis-ease as Judy, in that you cannot conceive of anyone's assessment of you and your motives that differs from your own being correct or valid. If they don't see you and your motives and your trends the way you do, they are WRONG. I think my assessments of your actions and your motives are correct, and I stand by them. You may attempt to refute them all you want, but I don't buy it. Like Judy, your claims about your habit patterns and your motives say one thing, but the consistent actions say quite another. I am *entitled* to my own opinions of your motives, and am equally entitled to express them here. What you don't like is THAT I express them here. I came to the decission that I would have to go into another round of what I actually think, and what I said, in opposition of what he declares me of having said. If anyone is interested - which I doubt, you can look. So I was simply tired of this game. My reaction my be right or wrong, you may call me thinskinned, I am simply being honest to you. Cool. I don't care whether you stay or go. As I've said many times before, I don't find you that interesting. Why should I leave only for one person? Well, for one thing I knew him online for a longer time than many others here. Second, I feel he has a certain degree of support in the group... Ahh...now we get to the REAL reason for this email, and for your consistent attacks on me when I bring up atheism or say something you don't like. What you don't like IN PARTICULAR is that some other people on this forum AGREE with me. THAT is what you would like to put a stop to. And in this you are JUST like Judy. That's why you two get along. :-) ...and he tries to dominate it, by his literary eloquence. Uh...thanks, I guess. :-) But I don't think I dominate this forum at all. And I doubt that anyone else does, either. What I think you are really trying to say is that you don't like me being here and saying things that you don't like hearing said. This seems to count more here than logical argument. There is a certain casualness in the group which I find alienating. Could that possibly be because you have a big spiritual stick up your butt? :-) Maybe the group is simply too big. There is a certain amount of negativity and sarcasm penetrating the group - I can live without it. Obviously, you cannot. Because here you are again. :-) Now let me say that I have also had fruitful discussions here, and there are certainly people here that I respect and like a lot. I also had nice exchanges with Barry in the past, I even had an email exchange with him not too long ago, which was very nice and on a friendly basis. I used to think that if we would meet in person, we could have a nice and very interesting talk. But our last exchanges made me feel otherwise - I may be right, I may be wrong, but I have no interest anymore. Only enough to write and email all this, right? :-) I just feel a wall of negativity descending on me in almost all of his posts. Must be my literary eloquence. Some people just can't HANDLE literary eloquence. :-) About Judy I can say that she has a remarkable intellectual power, and that she was always interpreting me right. What you mean to say is that she was interpreting you the way you'd LIKE to be interpreted. I was not. THAT is what you are pissed off about. My view of you and your motives is JUST as valid as yours. It's just different from yours, that's all. My credo in life is to listen to what people say, but to watch what they DO. In the case of you, Judy, and Jim, THAT is the issue. What you *claim* about your motives does not match what I and many others perceive as your motives. We have chosen to believe our own eyes and ears, and not your words. Maybe I expressed myself unclearly or too abstract, she could always say what I had meant. That doesn't mean I agree with everything she says - after all I am following a very different way since more than 20 years - but its a capacity of understanding and
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
On Jul 19, 2008, at 4:32 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: Why should I leave only for one person? Well, for one thing I knew him online for a longer time than many others here. Second, I feel he has a certain degree of support in the group, and he tries to dominate it, by his literary eloquence. This seems to count more here than logical argument. There is a certain casualness in the group which I find alienating. Maybe the group is simply too big. There is a certain amount of negativity and sarcasm penetrating the group - I can live without it. I have no idea what this idiot could possibly be referring to. :) Really, this is just a dumb attempt to make somebody else responsible for his own actions. Is he an adult? If so, unless Barry has the power to ban people, he left of his own volition, as does everyone else who unsubs. This attempt by Judy to make Barry responsible for the actions of someone else is pathetic. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 19, 2008, at 4:32 PM, Alex Stanley wrote: Why should I leave only for one person? Well, for one thing I knew him online for a longer time than many others here. Second, I feel he has a certain degree of support in the group, and he tries to dominate it, by his literary eloquence. This seems to count more here than logical argument. There is a certain casualness in the group which I find alienating. Maybe the group is simply too big. There is a certain amount of negativity and sarcasm penetrating the group - I can live without it. I have no idea what this idiot could possibly be referring to. :) Really, this is just a dumb attempt to make somebody else responsible for his own actions. Is he an adult? If so, unless Barry has the power to ban people, he left of his own volition, as does everyone else who unsubs. This attempt by Judy to make Barry responsible for the actions of someone else is pathetic. You give me too little credit, Sal. I DO have the power to fog people's brains with my super-powerful Negativity Ray (TM) and Literary Eloquence (TM), and turn them into mind-slaves who do whatever I want them to do. I *made* Michael unsubscribe, through the unrelenting power of my Evil Shakti (TM). Watch your step, or I might do it to you, too.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
On Jul 19, 2008, at 5:18 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: You give me too little credit, Sal. I DO have the power to fog people's brains with my super-powerful Negativity Ray (TM) and Literary Eloquence (TM), and turn them into mind-slaves who do whatever I want them to do. I *made* Michael unsubscribe, through the unrelenting power of my Evil Shakti (TM). Watch your step, or I might do it to you, too. Too late. I'm afraid my brain is already so fogged that anything more will make little difference. But hey, give it a go. Frankly, Michael's and Jim's obvious need to be 'special' and treated accordingly was downright bizarro, IMO. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: As always I enjoy all of your posts on FFL, and often find them entertaining and to the point. Just to put to rest Barry's fiction that I left FFL because of him, I decided to go simply because there was nothing more for me to say. FFL in my opinion has become mostly a bunch of people saying the same old tired things against the TMO and Maharishi and the TM technique. Not at all what it used to be - very little knowledge there now. You may share this if you want to. All the Best and please stay in touch, Jim Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: You may also share this if you want: I left because of Barry, yes, and I communicated this to Judy. I am not sure if Judy had me in mind, but it is certainly true. I just feel a wall of negativity descending on me in almost all of his posts. My experience also. He is obviously into very dark thinking. Just a few days ago Barry claimed I would soon die. He claims to be an occultists. The reality is that he has serious problems. About Judy I can say that she has a remarkable intellectual power, and that she was always interpreting me right. My experience also, Judy is a remarkable person. In May this year I met a jewish woman, about the same same age as Judy also. She has an intellect out of the ordinary (so often boringly repeated about Jews) and a wit and a warmth about her seldom seen in these whereabouts. Needless to say we instantly became friends. I largely agree with what Jim wrote. Jim was one of the few perls on this forum. Amongst posters here Michael/t3inity was one of those most appreciated. That Michael dropped this forum because of Barry is sad indeed, but not surprising. Barry, with his endless negativity towards anything uplifting, particularily the TMO which he left 30 (!) years ago, and his Buddhist friend Vaj have driven many away from this forum. And more will follow.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 19, 2008, at 5:18 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: You give me too little credit, Sal. I DO have the power to fog people's brains with my super-powerful Negativity Ray (TM) and Literary Eloquence (TM), and turn them into mind-slaves who do whatever I want them to do. I *made* Michael unsubscribe, through the unrelenting power of my Evil Shakti (TM). Watch your step, or I might do it to you, too. Too late. I'm afraid my brain is already so fogged that anything more will make little difference. But hey, give it a go. It's already Sunday here in Spain. I make it a point never to turn anyone into one of my mind-slaves on a Sunday. Unless they are really babalicious. Frankly, Michael's and Jim's obvious need to be 'special' and treated accordingly was downright bizarro, IMO. Bingo. If you cut to the chase, that's really it. They wanted to be treated a certain way, the way they felt that they *deserved* to be treated. People didn't treat them like they were special. They didn't like that much and, rather than figure out that all they had to do to fit in was to act like what they are -- ordinary human beings not one whit more special than any other -- they bailed. Just like Rory before them and probably a few special folks in the future. Meanwhile, the people here who are Just Folks, without any special needs, seem to get along just fine. Many of them even manage to have a good time. Could it possibly be that the Just Folks have figured out something that the special folks haven't? Or is it that I just haven't gotten around to them yet with my Negativity Ray (TM) and Literary Eloquence (TM)? Maybe they're still here only because I haven't yet unleashed the awesome whupassness of my Evil Shakti (TM) on them. Only the Shadow knows...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: You may also share this if you want: I left because of Barry, yes, and I communicated this to Judy. I am not sure if Judy had me in mind, but it is certainly true. Ah, I *knew* that if I kept associating Judy with McCarthy she'd email the person in question. Michael and I had exchanged emails when he unsubscribed, but his email above was entirely unsolicited by me. He'll confirm that too.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Really, this is just a dumb attempt to make somebody else responsible for his own actions. Is he an adult? If so, unless Barry has the power to ban people, he left of his own volition, as does everyone else who unsubs. This attempt by Judy to make Barry responsible for the actions of someone else is pathetic. Funny, you've never spoken up when Barry has accused me of driving people off a forum. I never suggested, of course (nor did Michael), that Michael hadn't left of his own volition. But people have their own reasons for making the decisions they do.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Based on hearing from Alex that Jim had unsubscribed, I *speculated* that it might have been him you were talking about. I then went on to explicitly say in the orig- inal post that I didn't believe that Jim would have said that he left because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. I said that that did not sound like him, and that I thought you'd made it up. As it turns out, you made it up about some other person, not Jim. :-) Not made up, sorry. Ah, but it is. I and everyone here have the right to assume that it IS made up You have the right to believe whatever you wish and to state your beliefs as such. Ethically, you do not have the right to state your beliefs as though they were established fact, as you did above. Ethically, schmethically. I said that you made it all up because as far as I (or any- one else here) can tell, you DID make it all up. That IS a fact unless you can prove that it is not. It may be a fact that you believe (or did when you were writing this) that I made it up. The *content* of that belief, however, is not a fact, it's a belief. You do not (or did not when you were writing this) know whether I made it up. As I said: Ethically, you do not have the right to state your belief as though what you believe were an established fact.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
On Jul 19, 2008, at 5:55 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Really, this is just a dumb attempt to make somebody else responsible for his own actions. Is he an adult? If so, unless Barry has the power to ban people, he left of his own volition, as does everyone else who unsubs. This attempt by Judy to make Barry responsible for the actions of someone else is pathetic. Funny, you've never spoken up when Barry has accused me of driving people off a forum. If you mean the case of Ruth, it seems that that's exactly what happened. I don't recall anyone else at the moment, Judy. I never suggested, of course (nor did Michael), that Michael hadn't left of his own volition. That's exactly what you suggested, citing Barry's antics as the reason he left: We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. Implying, of course, that he would have stayed otherwise, and was basically driven off by big, bad Barry. If that's not what you meant, all the posts you've wasted on this silliness have been even dumber than usual. But people have their own reasons for making the decisions they do. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: You may also share this if you want: I left because of Barry, yes, and I communicated this to Judy. I am not sure if Judy had me in mind, but it is certainly true. Ah, I *knew* that if I kept associating Judy with McCarthy she'd email the person in question. Michael and I had exchanged emails when he unsubscribed, but his email above was entirely unsolicited by me. He'll confirm that too. For that to be true, he would have to still be reading Fairfield Life after unsubscribing, right? Otherwise, how would he know to write his email and channel it through Alex? Seems to me that Jim is still reading FFL, too, or *he* wouldn't have weighed in with his own channeled email to join in the Gotta Trash Barry fest. What ever happened to the days when people said they were leaving and really left? :-) I'm smelling a bit of that old perfume called Let's pretend to leave and blame it all on some- one so that maybe people will throw him off the forum and then we can come back and be treated like the 'special' people we are. I think they sell it at the cosmetics counter at upscale stores like K-Mart.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
On Jul 19, 2008, at 6:09 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: What ever happened to the days when people said they were leaving and really left? :-) Unsubbers just ain't what they used to be... Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: You may also share this if you want: I left because of Barry, yes, and I communicated this to Judy. I am not sure if Judy had me in mind, but it is certainly true. Ah, I *knew* that if I kept associating Judy with McCarthy she'd email the person in question. Michael and I had exchanged emails when he unsubscribed, but his email above was entirely unsolicited by me. He'll confirm that too. For that to be true, he would have to still be reading Fairfield Life after unsubscribing, right? Right. (Unless somebody *else* emailed him to let him know what was going on.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 19, 2008, at 5:55 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: snip Really, this is just a dumb attempt to make somebody else responsible for his own actions. Is he an adult? If so, unless Barry has the power to ban people, he left of his own volition, as does everyone else who unsubs. This attempt by Judy to make Barry responsible for the actions of someone else is pathetic. Funny, you've never spoken up when Barry has accused me of driving people off a forum. If you mean the case of Ruth, it seems that that's exactly what happened. I don't recall anyone else at the moment, Judy. I never suggested, of course (nor did Michael), that Michael hadn't left of his own volition. That's exactly what you suggested, citing Barry's antics as the reason he left: We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. Implying, of course, that he would have stayed otherwise, and was basically driven off by big, bad Barry. If that's not what you meant, all the posts you've wasted on this silliness have been even dumber than usual. Not really. They diverted people's attention away from Ruth, didn't they? That was the whole idea.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 19, 2008, at 5:55 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: snip Really, this is just a dumb attempt to make somebody else responsible for his own actions. Is he an adult? If so, unless Barry has the power to ban people, he left of his own volition, as does everyone else who unsubs. This attempt by Judy to make Barry responsible for the actions of someone else is pathetic. Funny, you've never spoken up when Barry has accused me of driving people off a forum. If you mean the case of Ruth, it seems that that's exactly what happened. guffaw So when Ruth leaves claiming she couldn't tolerate my posts, I drove her off. When Michael leaves claiming he couldn't tolerate Barry's posts, he did so of his own volition. I don't recall anyone else at the moment, Judy. I guess you missed Barry's post to Ruth: Judy has a history of attempting to drive any strong woman off of any forum she is part of. It started back on a.m.t., and continues to this day. (Do you feel I've tried to drive you off FFL, Sal?) I never suggested, of course (nor did Michael), that Michael hadn't left of his own volition. That's exactly what you suggested, citing Barry's antics as the reason he left: We recently lost an extremely valuable long-time poster because of Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. Implying, of course, that he would have stayed otherwise, and was basically driven off by big, bad Barry. As I said: People have reasons for making the decisions they do. Michael's reason was Barry's nastiness and dishonesty. Obviously that doesn't mean he didn't leave of his own volition, any more than Ruth having me as a reason means she didn't leave of her own volition. If that's not what you meant, all the posts you've wasted on this silliness have been even dumber than usual. Sal, Barry made the false accusation, first, that I tried to drive strong women off the forums I was on; then when I pointed out that quite a few folks have left forums because of Barry, citing Michael (without naming him) as an example, Barry falsely claimed I was lying (and went on and on and on about it until Michael, bless his heart, spoke up and confirmed what I had said). *That* was what was dumb. And your comments, I'm afraid, are even dumber.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: snip If that's not what you meant, all the posts you've wasted on this silliness have been even dumber than usual. Not really. They diverted people's attention away from Ruth, didn't they? That was the whole idea. Barry: Get some help. Fast.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
On Jul 19, 2008, at 6:26 PM, authfriend wrote: Funny, you've never spoken up when Barry has accused me of driving people off a forum. If you mean the case of Ruth, it seems that that's exactly what happened. guffaw So when Ruth leaves claiming she couldn't tolerate my posts, I drove her off. When Michael leaves claiming he couldn't tolerate Barry's posts, he did so of his own volition. No, when Ruth left, she took responsibility for her actions. When Michael did, he claimed it was Barry's doing. Citing a person's posts as a reason doesn't constitute making them responsible IMO. Michael's a professional whiner with a clear agenda that wasn't being met here. May he have better luck elsewhere. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 19, 2008, at 6:26 PM, authfriend wrote: Funny, you've never spoken up when Barry has accused me of driving people off a forum. If you mean the case of Ruth, it seems that that's exactly what happened. guffaw So when Ruth leaves claiming she couldn't tolerate my posts, I drove her off. When Michael leaves claiming he couldn't tolerate Barry's posts, he did so of his own volition. No, when Ruth left, she took responsibility for her actions. When Michael did, he claimed it was Barry's doing. He did not, any more than Ruth claimed it was my doing. But you've just contradicted yourself: Above, you say that Barry's accusation that I drive people off forums was exactly what happened in Ruth's case. You can't keep track of your own arguments, Sal. Citing a person's posts as a reason doesn't constitute making them responsible IMO. Exactly my point. Michael's a professional whiner with a clear agenda that wasn't being met here. May he have better luck elsewhere. Oh, please. The only reason Michael spoke up at all, via his email to Alex, was to confirm what I had said against Barry's accusations that I was making it up. Unlike Ruth, he didn't make a farewell post blaming anybody as the reason he left, or even send an email to the moderators. He just quietly unsubscribed. If Barry hadn't gone into full meltdown mode, we wouldn't have heard anything more from Michael.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: You may also share this if you want: I left because of Barry, yes, and I communicated this to Judy. I am not sure if Judy had me in mind, but it is certainly true. Ah, I *knew* that if I kept associating Judy with McCarthy she'd email the person in question. Glad you decided to say what you think in front of people's backs for a change, Michael. :-) If anybody thinks that this is an overeaction, or is interested, you can look at the last post Barry wrote to one of my posts, and then compare it to the original post. To cut it short, Barry draws a number of conclusions out of my posts about my alleged opinions, which are in no way written there, and which I had made clear to him before, that they are not mine. Michael, you CLAIM that they are not yours. You suffer from the same dis-ease as Judy, in that you cannot conceive of anyone's assessment of you and your motives that differs from your own being correct or valid. If they don't see you and your motives and your trends the way you do, they are WRONG. I think my assessments of your actions and your motives are correct, and I stand by them. Hmmm... So when you perceive something that Michael denies, you're right and he's wrong, but when I perceive something about Curtis, I'm wrong and he's right? Goodness. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For that to be true, he would have to still be reading Fairfield Life after unsubscribing, right? Otherwise, how would he know to write his email and channel it through Alex? This isn't an important point, and there's no need for anyone to waste a post responding to it, but just for the sake of disclosure, Michael didn't specifically write to me. It was sent to FairfieldLife-owner (AT) yahoogroups.com And, mail to that address goes to Rick and the moderators. I usually let Rick do any message forwarding because my attitude is that people should subscribe if they wanna post. But, because he's out of town, I figured I should help out with that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Jul 19, 2008, at 5:18 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: You give me too little credit, Sal. I DO have the power to fog people's brains with my super-powerful Negativity Ray (TM) and Literary Eloquence (TM), and turn them into mind-slaves who do whatever I want them to do. I *made* Michael unsubscribe, through the unrelenting power of my Evil Shakti (TM). Watch your step, or I might do it to you, too. Too late. I'm afraid my brain is already so fogged that anything more will make little difference. But hey, give it a go. It's already Sunday here in Spain. I make it a point never to turn anyone into one of my mind-slaves on a Sunday. Unless they are really babalicious. Frankly, Michael's and Jim's obvious need to be 'special' and treated accordingly was downright bizarro, IMO. Bingo. If you cut to the chase, that's really it. They wanted to be treated a certain way, the way they felt that they *deserved* to be treated. People didn't treat them like they were special. They didn't like that much and, rather than figure out that all they had to do to fit in was to act like what they are -- ordinary human beings not one whit more special than any other -- they bailed. Just like Rory before them and probably a few special folks in the future. Meanwhile, the people here who are Just Folks, without any special needs, seem to get along just fine. Many of them even manage to have a good time. Could it possibly be that the Just Folks have figured out something that the special folks haven't? Or is it that I just haven't gotten around to them yet with my Negativity Ray (TM) and Literary Eloquence (TM)? Maybe they're still here only because I haven't yet unleashed the awesome whupassness of my Evil Shakti (TM) on them. Only the Shadow knows... Turq, you know the irony about this entire conversation? If you recall, it all started because one of the brightest new lights in this group ruthsimplicity left and made no bones about the fact that she left because she had better things to do than waste another moment of her energy on one Judith Stein. I truly loved Ruth's posts here. Always respectful and often brilliant. That does NOT mean I always agreed with her! But she made me think through my position on more than one occaisian. She also had a patient way (as does Curtis) that I really do admire. But look where we are now.you-know-who has steered this whole issue from the loss (100% due to old horse laugh herself) of someone whose writing REALLY uplifted the entire group down to a silly conversation about your role in making some semi-colorless sap leave.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: snip If anybody thinks that this is an overeaction, or is interested, you can look at the last post Barry wrote to one of my posts, and then compare it to the original post. To cut it short, Barry draws a number of conclusions out of my posts about my alleged opinions, which are in no way written there, and which I had made clear to him before, that they are not mine. Michael, you CLAIM that they are not yours. You suffer from the same dis-ease as Judy, in that you cannot conceive of anyone's assessment of you and your motives that differs from your own being correct or valid. If they don't see you and your motives and your trends the way you do, they are WRONG. I think my assessments of your actions and your motives are correct, and I stand by them. Hmmm... So when you perceive something that Michael denies, you're right and he's wrong, but when I perceive something about Curtis, I'm wrong and he's right? Barry is currently in the throes of a massive struggle with cognitive dissonance that has reached a crisis stage. As far as his psyche is concerned, it's a battle for his very survival. That's why we're seeing him make all these off-the-wall assertions; he's trying desperately to fight off reality. On a very fundamental level, he's talking to himself, attempting to reframe what's going on into something he can tolerate before it overwhelms him. He's been doing this as long as I've known him, but occasionally it explodes into a major confrontation with the real world that drives him to attack anything and anyone that fails to validate his shaky self-image, logic and reason be damned.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: snip If anybody thinks that this is an overeaction, or is interested, you can look at the last post Barry wrote to one of my posts, and then compare it to the original post. To cut it short, Barry draws a number of conclusions out of my posts about my alleged opinions, which are in no way written there, and which I had made clear to him before, that they are not mine. Michael, you CLAIM that they are not yours. You suffer from the same dis-ease as Judy, in that you cannot conceive of anyone's assessment of you and your motives that differs from your own being correct or valid. If they don't see you and your motives and your trends the way you do, they are WRONG. I think my assessments of your actions and your motives are correct, and I stand by them. Hmmm... So when you perceive something that Michael denies, you're right and he's wrong, but when I perceive something about Curtis, I'm wrong and he's right? Barry is currently in the throes of a massive struggle with cognitive dissonance that has reached a crisis stage. As far as his psyche is concerned, it's a battle for his very survival. That's why we're seeing him make all these off-the-wall assertions; he's trying desperately to fight off reality. On a very fundamental level, he's talking to himself, attempting to reframe what's going on into something he can tolerate before it overwhelms him. He's been doing this as long as I've known him, but occasionally it explodes into a major confrontation with the real world that drives him to attack anything and anyone that fails to validate his shaky self-image, logic and reason be damned. You really are obsessed with him aren't you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Turq, you know the irony about this entire conversation? If you recall, it all started because one of the brightest new lights in this group ruthsimplicity left and made no bones about the fact that she left because she had better things to do than waste another moment of her energy on one Judith Stein. Was someone forcing her to waste her energy on me? Actually, that isn't how it all started. How it all started was Barry's goodbye post to Ruth, which was filled with outrageous and deliberate misstatements of fact concerning moi, including that I always try to drive strong women off whatever forum I'm on. Trouble is, as I've pointed out, Ruth and I had a very cordial relationship, characterized by mutual admiration and respect, until she had a meltdown over the abduction-experience issue. snip But look where we are now.you-know-who has steered this whole issue from the loss (100% due to old horse laugh herself) of someone whose writing REALLY uplifted the entire group down to a silly conversation about your role in making some semi- colorless sap leave. More cognitive dissonance. Looks like Barry's malady is infecting his supporters as well. What focused the conversation on Michael leaving (actually one of the most colorful posters ever to this group) was Barry's accusation that I was lying about why he had left. The humiliation of having Michael confirm what I said has just about driven Barry around the bend. If you consider yourself a friend of his, you ought to be helping him deal with it by gently drawing him closer to reality and reassuring him that he'll survive. You aren't doing him any favors by validating his fantasies. He's in enough trouble already.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: snip Turq, you know the irony about this entire conversation? If you recall, it all started because one of the brightest new lights in this group ruthsimplicity left and made no bones about the fact that she left because she had better things to do than waste another moment of her energy on one Judith Stein. Was someone forcing her to waste her energy on me? Actually, that isn't how it all started. How it all started was Barry's goodbye post to Ruth, which was filled with outrageous and deliberate misstatements of fact concerning moi, including that I always try to drive strong women off whatever forum I'm on. Trouble is, as I've pointed out, Ruth and I had a very cordial relationship, characterized by mutual admiration and respect, until she had a meltdown over the abduction-experience issue. snip But look where we are now.you-know-who has steered this whole issue from the loss (100% due to old horse laugh herself) of someone whose writing REALLY uplifted the entire group down to a silly conversation about your role in making some semi- colorless sap leave. More cognitive dissonance. Looks like Barry's malady is infecting his supporters as well. What focused the conversation on Michael leaving (actually one of the most colorful posters ever to this group) was Barry's accusation that I was lying about why he had left. The humiliation of having Michael confirm what I said has just about driven Barry around the bend. If you consider yourself a friend of his, you ought to be helping him deal with it by gently drawing him closer to reality and reassuring him that he'll survive. You aren't doing him any favors by validating his fantasies. He's in enough trouble already. You know Judy, I've known Barry for nearly 30 years. It's more than 30 years actually (damn how time flies!). You are engaging in utter fantasy about him. Barry has an extremely keen sense of humor. He's one of the few people I've known who can truly get as much pleasure laughing at himself as someone else. If you think for one second that Barry is humilated by what Michael said you haven't learned a thing about him in all of these years of endless sparring. Tweaking you is sport to him. He amuses himself doing it. Barry (like me) likes to laugh and does not like to be bored. What makes many of your posts so damn boring and redundant is that you take yourself SO seriously. This particular episode started because a sharp intellect (Ruth) realized that debating with you is a dead end. A humorless dead end at that. She decided to leave FFL since you would respond even when she wasn't addressing you. She has better things to do than going around in cirlcles with your own special brand of madness. It isn't Barry needin help m'dear. It's you. I could care less whether you get it or not. In the meantime I'll enjoy (when I have time to check in) Barry's prodding and poking of you. You take his bait every time. After all these years you still go for it. It's a twisted little play that I hope never stops.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
but when I perceive something about Curtis, I'm wrong and he's right? How you view my motivation to goof on Maharishi's grandiosity is really none of my business. I'm sure you will come up with something that fits your world view cuz that is what humans tend to do. On a forum like this you could opt for the alternative of asking me how I feel about things and not assuming that you know me better than I know myself from my posts...but I won't hold my breath on that one. That is the the tougher road and it can challenge preconceptions. You have to enjoy being wrong about someone as much as you enjoy being right about them before you had more information. But one thing I will point out. My posts were about Maharishi and my relationship with him, and you came after me personally. That is a trait that I do not respect. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: Received in email from Michael/t3rinity: You may also share this if you want: I left because of Barry, yes, and I communicated this to Judy. I am not sure if Judy had me in mind, but it is certainly true. Ah, I *knew* that if I kept associating Judy with McCarthy she'd email the person in question. Glad you decided to say what you think in front of people's backs for a change, Michael. :-) If anybody thinks that this is an overeaction, or is interested, you can look at the last post Barry wrote to one of my posts, and then compare it to the original post. To cut it short, Barry draws a number of conclusions out of my posts about my alleged opinions, which are in no way written there, and which I had made clear to him before, that they are not mine. Michael, you CLAIM that they are not yours. You suffer from the same dis-ease as Judy, in that you cannot conceive of anyone's assessment of you and your motives that differs from your own being correct or valid. If they don't see you and your motives and your trends the way you do, they are WRONG. I think my assessments of your actions and your motives are correct, and I stand by them. Hmmm... So when you perceive something that Michael denies, you're right and he's wrong, but when I perceive something about Curtis, I'm wrong and he's right? Goodness. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip The humiliation of having Michael confirm what I said has just about driven Barry around the bend. If you consider yourself a friend of his, you ought to be helping him deal with it by gently drawing him closer to reality and reassuring him that he'll survive. You aren't doing him any favors by validating his fantasies. He's in enough trouble already. You know Judy, I've known Barry for nearly 30 years. It's more than 30 years actually (damn how time flies!). You are engaging in utter fantasy about him. Barry has an extremely keen sense of humor. He's one of the few people I've known who can truly get as much pleasure laughing at himself as someone else. Look, I know you have to defend him because he's your friend, but I've known him for almost 14 years now-- not as long as you have, and only via this medium-- but long enough to have a pretty clear idea of who he is. I have never *once* seen him laugh at himself. Maybe he does it in real life with people he's close to and not threatened by, but he has a need to present himself quite differently in this venue. And enough others over the years have validated my take on him, both in public and in private, for me to know I'm not indulging in some purely personal fantasy about him. He's one of the most mean-spirited, hypocritical, dishonest, ego-driven, angry, unhappy individuals I've ever encountered anywhere. If you think for one second that Barry is humilated by what Michael said you haven't learned a thing about him in all of these years of endless sparring. He's doing everything he can to avoid the appearance of humiliation, but the intensity of his reaction, and its very high fantasy quotient, gives it away. Tweaking you is sport to him. He amuses himself doing it. Barry (like me) likes to laugh and does not like to be bored. There's more than a desire to laugh behind his attacks on me (and others), Geeze. If you can't see that, you haven't been paying attention. Again, this is not just my take by a very long shot. There's something very deeply twisted about him. And you might want to read up on the psychology of boredom. It's not a benign symptom. But I agree with you that it's a big part of what's troubling him. What makes many of your posts so damn boring and redundant is that you take yourself SO seriously. This particular episode started because a sharp intellect (Ruth) realized that debating with you is a dead end. A humorless dead end at that. She decided to leave FFL since you would respond even when she wasn't addressing you. Well, of course I would, if she said something I wanted to comment on. That she decided she wasn't going to speak to me doesn't somehow mean I have to stop expressing my opinion about what she says. That's sort of like saying, You can't see me because I have my eyes closed. But there's no obligation whatsoever for her to respond, so the reason she gave is patently bogus. She did not cover herself with glory in the discussion we had about abduction experiences. She took a position at the outset--the one I initially commented on--and then felt she had to stick to it even though it became obvious she wasn't as well informed as she had thought. That's an unusual situation for her, and she didn't know how to handle it. She has better things to do than going around in cirlcles with your own special brand of madness. I consistently fail to be impressed by generalized accusations for which no evidence or examples are provided. It isn't Barry needin help m'dear. It's you. I could care less whether you get it or not. I think both of you need help, frankly. Enablers need treatment as well as those they enable. In the meantime I'll enjoy (when I have time to check in) Barry's prodding and poking of you. You take his bait every time. After all these years you still go for it. How interesting that you don't see the same thing on his side.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry's fiction
I've known Barry for over 30 years, too. We were on a course together for 6 months in St. Moritz in '77. The only problem is, I can't remember which of the 150-odd course participants he is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, geezerfreak geezerfreak@ wrote: snip Turq, you know the irony about this entire conversation? If you recall, it all started because one of the brightest new lights in this group ruthsimplicity left and made no bones about the fact that she left because she had better things to do than waste another moment of her energy on one Judith Stein. Was someone forcing her to waste her energy on me? Actually, that isn't how it all started. How it all started was Barry's goodbye post to Ruth, which was filled with outrageous and deliberate misstatements of fact concerning moi, including that I always try to drive strong women off whatever forum I'm on. Trouble is, as I've pointed out, Ruth and I had a very cordial relationship, characterized by mutual admiration and respect, until she had a meltdown over the abduction-experience issue. snip But look where we are now.you-know-who has steered this whole issue from the loss (100% due to old horse laugh herself) of someone whose writing REALLY uplifted the entire group down to a silly conversation about your role in making some semi- colorless sap leave. More cognitive dissonance. Looks like Barry's malady is infecting his supporters as well. What focused the conversation on Michael leaving (actually one of the most colorful posters ever to this group) was Barry's accusation that I was lying about why he had left. The humiliation of having Michael confirm what I said has just about driven Barry around the bend. If you consider yourself a friend of his, you ought to be helping him deal with it by gently drawing him closer to reality and reassuring him that he'll survive. You aren't doing him any favors by validating his fantasies. He's in enough trouble already. You know Judy, I've known Barry for nearly 30 years. It's more than 30 years actually (damn how time flies!). You are engaging in utter fantasy about him. Barry has an extremely keen sense of humor. He's one of the few people I've known who can truly get as much pleasure laughing at himself as someone else. If you think for one second that Barry is humilated by what Michael said you haven't learned a thing about him in all of these years of endless sparring. Tweaking you is sport to him. He amuses himself doing it. Barry (like me) likes to laugh and does not like to be bored. What makes many of your posts so damn boring and redundant is that you take yourself SO seriously. This particular episode started because a sharp intellect (Ruth) realized that debating with you is a dead end. A humorless dead end at that. She decided to leave FFL since you would respond even when she wasn't addressing you. She has better things to do than going around in cirlcles with your own special brand of madness. It isn't Barry needin help m'dear. It's you. I could care less whether you get it or not. In the meantime I'll enjoy (when I have time to check in) Barry's prodding and poking of you. You take his bait every time. After all these years you still go for it. It's a twisted little play that I hope never stops.
