[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > You would really like to sell that one wouldn't you Judy? Curtis exposed > youor rather, allowed you to expose yourself for everyone to see. All of > your huffing, puffing and attempts to distract cannot change that fact. There is a secret, private insight into "flubbing" in play here Joe. Specialized knowledge that cannot be challenged because it is subjectively generated. And there is also an ability to know the inner workings of someone else's mind which "secretly" agrees with her inner POV, but will not publicly admit it. All that is needed to reveal this private fantasy is a cryptic statement such as: "Like I said..." Content free shame spin! > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > Alright Judy. > > > > > > Now I know some of the things that you are basing > > > your negative view of me on. And anyone else, whose > > > head is not planted face forward in their pasta from > > > the mind numbing nature of this exchange (I will > > > happily cop to contributing to that), can judge for > > > themselves. > > > > Don't worry, Curtis, nobody but you 'n' me will ever > > know how thoroughly you flubbed this one. > > > > You would really like to sell that one wouldn't you Judy? Curtis exposed > youor rather, allowed you to expose yourself for everyone to see. All of > your huffing, puffing and attempts to distract cannot change that fact. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > You would really like to sell that one wouldn't you Judy? > Curtis exposed youor rather, allowed you to expose > yourself for everyone to see. All of your huffing, puffing > and attempts to distract cannot change that fact. Fie on thee, Geez. Do you not *read* graphic novels? No superhero or superheroine worth his/her stuff would rely on mere huffing, puffing, and distraction. They'd have *weapons*...and, given the genre, *superweapons* at that. [http://www.feedem.co.uk/dog-2/dog-training-17/company-animals-corrector\ -5516-3849_zoom.jpg?image=3849&type=zoom&extensions=jpg]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > Alright Judy. > > > > > > Now I know some of the things that you are basing > > > your negative view of me on. And anyone else, whose > > > head is not planted face forward in their pasta from > > > the mind numbing nature of this exchange (I will > > > happily cop to contributing to that), can judge for > > > themselves. > > > > Don't worry, Curtis, nobody but you 'n' me will ever > > know how thoroughly you flubbed this one. > > You would really like to sell that one wouldn't you Judy? > Curtis exposed youor rather, allowed you to expose > yourself for everyone to see. All of your huffing, puffing > and attempts to distract cannot change that fact. Like I said, Geeze...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > Alright Judy. > > > > Now I know some of the things that you are basing > > your negative view of me on. And anyone else, whose > > head is not planted face forward in their pasta from > > the mind numbing nature of this exchange (I will > > happily cop to contributing to that), can judge for > > themselves. > > Don't worry, Curtis, nobody but you 'n' me will ever > know how thoroughly you flubbed this one. > You would really like to sell that one wouldn't you Judy? Curtis exposed youor rather, allowed you to expose yourself for everyone to see. All of your huffing, puffing and attempts to distract cannot change that fact.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > Alright Judy. > > > > > > Now I know some of the things that you are basing > > > your negative view of me on. And anyone else, whose > > > head is not planted face forward in their pasta from > > > the mind numbing nature of this exchange (I will > > > happily cop to contributing to that), can judge for > > > themselves. > > > > Don't worry, Curtis, nobody but you 'n' me will ever > > know how thoroughly you flubbed this one. > > Despite the spooky innuendo implied by such a statement, > reasonable people who did follow the exchange when it all > went down already voted you off the island on this one. > So I am afraid you are on your own with whatever the > concept of "flubbed" means to you. > > My goal was to get you to show what was behind your > accusations and innuendos of my "badness" and your special > knowledge of it. You did what you could to prove your > case and I am satisfied that reasonable people will not > join your malicious perspective. > > But for the record we share no common perspective on this. > Our perspectives are completely opposite and contradictory. > There is no version of "you 'n' me" at play here Judy. Like I said, Curtis...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > Alright Judy. > > > > Now I know some of the things that you are basing > > your negative view of me on. And anyone else, whose > > head is not planted face forward in their pasta from > > the mind numbing nature of this exchange (I will > > happily cop to contributing to that), can judge for > > themselves. > > Don't worry, Curtis, nobody but you 'n' me will ever > know how thoroughly you flubbed this one. Despite the spooky innuendo implied by such a statement, reasonable people who did follow the exchange when it all went down already voted you off the island on this one. So I am afraid you are on your own with whatever the concept of "flubbed" means to you. My goal was to get you to show what was behind your accusations and innuendos of my "badness" and your special knowledge of it. You did what you could to prove your case and I am satisfied that reasonable people will not join your malicious perspective. But for the record we share no common perspective on this. Our perspectives are completely opposite and contradictory. There is no version of "you 'n' me" at play here Judy. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > Alright Judy. > > Now I know some of the things that you are basing > your negative view of me on. And anyone else, whose > head is not planted face forward in their pasta from > the mind numbing nature of this exchange (I will > happily cop to contributing to that), can judge for > themselves. Don't worry, Curtis, nobody but you 'n' me will ever know how thoroughly you flubbed this one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
> Now I know some of the things that you are basing > your negative view of me on. And anyone else... > Who said I had a negative view of Hugo and Curtis?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
Lordy girl you are SO insane! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > OK, Curtis, this is my last post of the week. You're > free to continue to dissemble to your heart's content > without fear of correction until Friday or Saturday. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > You know what would have worked better than another > > round of bluff and bluster? Examples that would prove > > your point to a reasonable person. And pointing to a > > bunch of old posts with me asking you the same thing > > doesn't count. > > You know as well as I do that the full context was > crucial with regard to that exchange. "Examples" > wouldn't cut it; the whole exchange was the example. > > You read it, then refused to acknowledge it showed > exactly what I said it did. > > "Doesn't count" is disingenuous (right there is an > "example"). It "doesn't count" only because you claim > it doesn't count, not because it isn't evidence. > > You also know as well as I do that that exchange was > highly personal between you and me; that's why > nobody else got what you were doing even at the time. > How much less would a "reasonable person" *now* have > command of all the context necessary to see what was > happening from an out-of-context "example"? > > More disingenuity. You demand the impossible, quite > deliberately, so you can claim I haven't been able to > produce. > > And your *response* to my citing the exchange itself-- > the elaborate interpretation of my behavior that > you claimed gave you "closure"--was, as I said, so > convoluted in its dishonesty--its outright > misrepresentations of the earlier exchange as well as > the current one--that to untangle them in a post > would also be impossible. > > In fact, I gave untangling it a shot, offline, and > realized all I was doing was describing every post > in the earlier exchange one by one to show the actual > development and how you'd misrepresented it, because, > again, the context was crucial. No point to it when > the original exchange is easily available. > > I will give you one example from your response, what > you called your "recap": > > "You claimed that I had said things after you had > warned me that caused you to go off on me, and it > was my fault because of the specific things I said > after your warning. But you can produce none except > the whole posts which I re-read and say nothing more > than me trying to figure out what set you off." > > A tangle of misrepresentations about what the > original dispute involved. > > First, what I warned you not to do was to demand an > explanation of why I said your first post showed > that you hadn't changed from what you were like on > alt.m.t. Subsequent posts show you doing *exactly > that*--you even acknowledge it in what I just quoted: > "trying to figure out what set you off." > > I warned you *not* do do this because--as should have > been obvious--the reason had to do with your behavior > on alt.m.t. I couldn't explain why that first post > showed how you hadn't changed without referring to > what you hadn't changed *from*. I didn't want to dig > all that up any more than you professed not to. > > What you described in that first post of your > experience of our alt.m.t exchanges was starkly at > variance with my experience, and as such it was > distinctly snarky, although you tried to pretend it > had been intended as a compliment. > > But that first snarky post was actually not that big > a deal; that's why I was willing to drop it and > suggested you do the same. > > What "set me off" was your continued prodding after > that. > > All this is explicitly clear from the sequence of > posts in the exchange. > > But *even this* wasn't what I found so reprehensible. > If you were willing to take the consequences of the > prodding, fine with me. > > What was reprehensible was that you refused to > acknowledge that you'd prodded me into doing what I > had been trying to resist doing--describing my > experience of your alt.m.t behavior--when folks were > jumping on me for doing it. > > So that's the most recent example of your penchant for > dishonesty. Let's recap: It wasn't that first snarky > post; it wasn't the prodding; it was your refusal to > acknowledge the prodding, allowing me to take the > entire blame for prolonging the exchange. (You didn't > even need to take the entire blame yourself; it would > have been enough for you to say it was mutual.) > > Let's compare with your version already quoted above: > > "You claimed that I had said things after you had > warned me that caused you to go off on me, and it > was my fault because of the specific things I said > after your warning. But you can produce none except > the whole posts which I re-read and say nothing more > than me trying to figure out what set you off." > > (The interesting thing ab
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
Alright Judy. Now I know some of the things that you are basing your negative view of me on. And anyone else, whose head is not planted face forward in their pasta from the mind numbing nature of this exchange (I will happily cop to contributing to that), can judge for themselves. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > OK, Curtis, this is my last post of the week. You're > free to continue to dissemble to your heart's content > without fear of correction until Friday or Saturday. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > You know what would have worked better than another > > round of bluff and bluster? Examples that would prove > > your point to a reasonable person. And pointing to a > > bunch of old posts with me asking you the same thing > > doesn't count. > > You know as well as I do that the full context was > crucial with regard to that exchange. "Examples" > wouldn't cut it; the whole exchange was the example. > > You read it, then refused to acknowledge it showed > exactly what I said it did. > > "Doesn't count" is disingenuous (right there is an > "example"). It "doesn't count" only because you claim > it doesn't count, not because it isn't evidence. > > You also know as well as I do that that exchange was > highly personal between you and me; that's why > nobody else got what you were doing even at the time. > How much less would a "reasonable person" *now* have > command of all the context necessary to see what was > happening from an out-of-context "example"? > > More disingenuity. You demand the impossible, quite > deliberately, so you can claim I haven't been able to > produce. > > And your *response* to my citing the exchange itself-- > the elaborate interpretation of my behavior that > you claimed gave you "closure"--was, as I said, so > convoluted in its dishonesty--its outright > misrepresentations of the earlier exchange as well as > the current one--that to untangle them in a post > would also be impossible. > > In fact, I gave untangling it a shot, offline, and > realized all I was doing was describing every post > in the earlier exchange one by one to show the actual > development and how you'd misrepresented it, because, > again, the context was crucial. No point to it when > the original exchange is easily available. > > I will give you one example from your response, what > you called your "recap": > > "You claimed that I had said things after you had > warned me that caused you to go off on me, and it > was my fault because of the specific things I said > after your warning. But you can produce none except > the whole posts which I re-read and say nothing more > than me trying to figure out what set you off." > > A tangle of misrepresentations about what the > original dispute involved. > > First, what I warned you not to do was to demand an > explanation of why I said your first post showed > that you hadn't changed from what you were like on > alt.m.t. Subsequent posts show you doing *exactly > that*--you even acknowledge it in what I just quoted: > "trying to figure out what set you off." > > I warned you *not* do do this because--as should have > been obvious--the reason had to do with your behavior > on alt.m.t. I couldn't explain why that first post > showed how you hadn't changed without referring to > what you hadn't changed *from*. I didn't want to dig > all that up any more than you professed not to. > > What you described in that first post of your > experience of our alt.m.t exchanges was starkly at > variance with my experience, and as such it was > distinctly snarky, although you tried to pretend it > had been intended as a compliment. > > But that first snarky post was actually not that big > a deal; that's why I was willing to drop it and > suggested you do the same. > > What "set me off" was your continued prodding after > that. > > All this is explicitly clear from the sequence of > posts in the exchange. > > But *even this* wasn't what I found so reprehensible. > If you were willing to take the consequences of the > prodding, fine with me. > > What was reprehensible was that you refused to > acknowledge that you'd prodded me into doing what I > had been trying to resist doing--describing my > experience of your alt.m.t behavior--when folks were > jumping on me for doing it. > > So that's the most recent example of your penchant for > dishonesty. Let's recap: It wasn't that first snarky > post; it wasn't the prodding; it was your refusal to > acknowledge the prodding, allowing me to take the > entire blame for prolonging the exchange. (You didn't > even need to take the entire blame yourself; it would > have been enough for you to say it was mutual.) > > Let's compare with your version already quoted above: > > "You claimed that I had said things after you had > warned me that caused you to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
OK, Curtis, this is my last post of the week. You're free to continue to dissemble to your heart's content without fear of correction until Friday or Saturday. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > You know what would have worked better than another > round of bluff and bluster? Examples that would prove > your point to a reasonable person. And pointing to a > bunch of old posts with me asking you the same thing > doesn't count. You know as well as I do that the full context was crucial with regard to that exchange. "Examples" wouldn't cut it; the whole exchange was the example. You read it, then refused to acknowledge it showed exactly what I said it did. "Doesn't count" is disingenuous (right there is an "example"). It "doesn't count" only because you claim it doesn't count, not because it isn't evidence. You also know as well as I do that that exchange was highly personal between you and me; that's why nobody else got what you were doing even at the time. How much less would a "reasonable person" *now* have command of all the context necessary to see what was happening from an out-of-context "example"? More disingenuity. You demand the impossible, quite deliberately, so you can claim I haven't been able to produce. And your *response* to my citing the exchange itself-- the elaborate interpretation of my behavior that you claimed gave you "closure"--was, as I said, so convoluted in its dishonesty--its outright misrepresentations of the earlier exchange as well as the current one--that to untangle them in a post would also be impossible. In fact, I gave untangling it a shot, offline, and realized all I was doing was describing every post in the earlier exchange one by one to show the actual development and how you'd misrepresented it, because, again, the context was crucial. No point to it when the original exchange is easily available. I will give you one example from your response, what you called your "recap": "You claimed that I had said things after you had warned me that caused you to go off on me, and it was my fault because of the specific things I said after your warning. But you can produce none except the whole posts which I re-read and say nothing more than me trying to figure out what set you off." A tangle of misrepresentations about what the original dispute involved. First, what I warned you not to do was to demand an explanation of why I said your first post showed that you hadn't changed from what you were like on alt.m.t. Subsequent posts show you doing *exactly that*--you even acknowledge it in what I just quoted: "trying to figure out what set you off." I warned you *not* do do this because--as should have been obvious--the reason had to do with your behavior on alt.m.t. I couldn't explain why that first post showed how you hadn't changed without referring to what you hadn't changed *from*. I didn't want to dig all that up any more than you professed not to. What you described in that first post of your experience of our alt.m.t exchanges was starkly at variance with my experience, and as such it was distinctly snarky, although you tried to pretend it had been intended as a compliment. But that first snarky post was actually not that big a deal; that's why I was willing to drop it and suggested you do the same. What "set me off" was your continued prodding after that. All this is explicitly clear from the sequence of posts in the exchange. But *even this* wasn't what I found so reprehensible. If you were willing to take the consequences of the prodding, fine with me. What was reprehensible was that you refused to acknowledge that you'd prodded me into doing what I had been trying to resist doing--describing my experience of your alt.m.t behavior--when folks were jumping on me for doing it. So that's the most recent example of your penchant for dishonesty. Let's recap: It wasn't that first snarky post; it wasn't the prodding; it was your refusal to acknowledge the prodding, allowing me to take the entire blame for prolonging the exchange. (You didn't even need to take the entire blame yourself; it would have been enough for you to say it was mutual.) Let's compare with your version already quoted above: "You claimed that I had said things after you had warned me that caused you to go off on me, and it was my fault because of the specific things I said after your warning. But you can produce none except the whole posts which I re-read and say nothing more than me trying to figure out what set you off." (The interesting thing about your misrepresentations quoted above is that around a month later in email, you made it quite clear that you understood *exactly* what my beef was, and you summarily dismissed it.) Anyway, that's just one example of the disingenuity of your "closure" post. It was relatively self- contained, but look how long and complicated it was
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
Turq: > ...anyone willing to say that their subjective > experience equals "truth" is essentially saying > that their subjective POV *defines* "truth." > So, Turq is thinking that "truth" is a material object and that the material objects have an absolute existence prior to, and independent of, knowledge and consciousness. Go figure. > That's not just fundamentalism, that's outright > insanity. > In contrast to Turq's naive realism, moniists postulate that *consciousness* or Mind, is the ultimate reality and is based on ideas. > That's Son Of Sam material. > Unfortunately for Turq, his beliefs are unprovable because no material object is external to subjective perceptions. If there is no conscious entity, how could anyone prove anything about objects of perception? It doesn't make any sense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: You know what would have worked better than another round of bluff and bluster? Examples that would prove your point to a reasonable person. And pointing to a bunch of old posts with me asking you the same thing doesn't count. No one has given you more chances to show up decently here than I have Judy. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Zero evidence for your baseless, unpleasant claims. Nice > > try at the offense-defense. That used to work pretty well > > till we nailed it down to a simple request for supporting > > evidence. And you had none. > > I had plenty. I cited it. You read it. You just > refuse to acknowledge it. And you've supplied a > a whole new batch to justify that refusal. > > > "I'm done." > > > > You sure are Judy. > > I'm done with you and your dishonesty. As I said, > you get to live with it. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Zero evidence for your baseless, unpleasant claims. Nice > try at the offense-defense. That used to work pretty well > till we nailed it down to a simple request for supporting > evidence. And you had none. I had plenty. I cited it. You read it. You just refuse to acknowledge it. And you've supplied a a whole new batch to justify that refusal. > "I'm done." > > You sure are Judy. I'm done with you and your dishonesty. As I said, you get to live with it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
do: > Congrats Curtis! > For what - taking the fall for you and getting whipped in a public debate? LoL! Judy: > You engineered the whole thing, getting back > at me for our alt.m.t clashes. And that was > despite the effort I made when you first joined > us here to be cordial... > Lots of people, like Curtis, used to lurk on alt.m.t. so they could make a sneak attack on Judy. 'Turq' calls it a 'set-up'. 'Do' came over from alt.religion.mormon and tried to pick a fight with Judy. She whipped them all really good! Then, they stalked her over here, where Judy beat them up all over again! Can you believe that? But, I DID NOT bring these informants over here - I've been an informant here since Message #714. Why they would want to come over here to get waxed again is beyond me. Go figure. "I understand that there is a woman named Judy that defends the insanity of MMY and the TM org. I understand that she is very effective in her words to support the spiritually corrupt and crumbling empire of MMY and the TM org. Please be warned that I have been fully informed about your skills at obfuscation and ad hominem. I will tolerate none of that..." Read more: From: John Manning Subject: Where is Judy when TMers need her? Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: November 15, 2001
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Zero evidence for your baseless, unpleasant claims. Nice try at the > offense-defense. That used to work pretty well till we nailed it down to a > simple request for supporting evidence. And you had none. > > "I'm done." > > You sure are Judy. > Congrats Curtis! > > > > > > Curtis, your dishonesty in this post is so pervasive > > and convoluted I'm not even going to try to unravel > > it. You'd just snarl it right back up again worse > > than before. > > > > As I said back then, it isn't clear whether you're > > well aware of how grossly you've twisted things, or > > whether you've just done a magnificently effective > > snowjob on yourself. > > > > If it's the former, it's digusting. If it's the > > latter, it's pitiable. > > > > Whichever, you get to live with it. I'm done. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > Just as I thought Judy, no smoking gun, just your own self created > > > animosity. There is nothing in those posts to support any of your vague > > > innuendo charges. > > > > > > > Sometimes it's just plain nastiness, other times it's > > > > pretty gross intellectual dishonesty. > > > > > > Lets see some of these that were not in direct response to your treating > > > me poorly. Again with the vaguely insulting accusations with zero > > > evidence. > > > > > > Your fantasy isn't holding up under closer scrutiny. The reason I dug > > > this up is because I never have understood how you turn on me after a few > > > friendly posts. Now I know it is just an old grudge. One you created on > > > your own. I re-read them and it is as I remember it. > > > > > > My best guess is that you don't even know what your problem is with me. > > > It is just a locked-in feeling that hasn't seen the light of day for a > > > while, with no specific reference point. > > > > > > The last post also contains unspecified claim of my "dishonesty" without > > > proof. It deserved no response because there is none except this: show > > > me one example. > > > > > > So to recap. You claimed that I had said things after you had warned me > > > that caused you to go off on me, and it was my fault because of the > > > specific things I said after your warning. But you can produce none > > > except the whole posts which I re-read and say nothing more than me > > > trying to figure out what set you off. You have failed to show me one > > > example of what you claim. But you think that maybe another vague charge > > > of nastiness and dishonest will distract me from your failure to produce > > > any evidence for your insult? > > > > > > You should have taken the better road on this one Judy. But having > > > re-read your responses, I am not surprised. You've been running the > > > smoke and mirrors animosity program for a while now. > > > > > > But better yet, prove me wrong with specific example so compelling that > > > any reasonable person will take your side. > > > > > > From the last post you referenced: > > > ME:> I still would like to know what upset you about my post. > > > > > > Judy:I wasn't "upset" by it, Curtis. Mildly disappointed, > > > but not surprised, that you hadn't changed, as I said > > > to start with. > > > > > > So the whole thing about me having to take responsibility for you getting > > > upset was all bullshit too? There was never anything for me to own up to > > > for provoking you. You were never upset by anything I said, just > > > "disappointed." And when everyone said they thought you were acting > > > unfairly to me, that had nothing to do with me setting you up. It was > > > all you and your fantasy all along. Nursing a grudge from almost a > > > decade past. > > > > > > I see you with much better clarity Judy, I'm glad we had this little > > > exchange. The compliment that you seem to have trouble with in the last > > > post is that you keep the ball in play. The same compliment I have > > > always paid you. But the fact that you include negative vague > > > accusations makes dealing with you difficult and annoying. Just as I > > > said in one of my first posts back here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > You disappoint me every time you drop the oh-so- > > > > > > charming facade you showed up with here and let us > > > > > > see what's underneath (which is what I had been > > > > > > familiar with from alt.m.t). > > > > > > > > > > I would like to see an example of what I have been saying > > > > > that is so horrible, my underneat
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
Okey-dokey. Keep 'em coming there Judith. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > > > Ahem. He figured you out and summed you up neat and clean > > and you find it a bit scary don't you? It shows. > > Geeze, you are perhaps the least insightful person on > this forum. And that's saying something. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
Right. You've been exposed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > Hey Joe, > > > > You have always been a positive force for me here. I got > > the questions answered I wanted to. It must seem weird > > from the outside, but I got the closure I sought. > > MAN, that's sad. That's just what you did with TM, > make up an elaborate story rather than deal with the > reality. Cover it all up with pretty paper, slap on > a big bow, and you'll never have to look at the big > gaps where the pieces don't fit together. One simply > can't be without closure, after all. > > Whatever gets you through the night, I guess. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > Ahem. He figured you out and summed you up neat and clean > and you find it a bit scary don't you? It shows. Geeze, you are perhaps the least insightful person on this forum. And that's saying something.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > Hey Joe, > > You have always been a positive force for me here. I got > the questions answered I wanted to. It must seem weird > from the outside, but I got the closure I sought. MAN, that's sad. That's just what you did with TM, make up an elaborate story rather than deal with the reality. Cover it all up with pretty paper, slap on a big bow, and you'll never have to look at the big gaps where the pieces don't fit together. One simply can't be without closure, after all. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
I admire your patience man. You really do want to see the thing through to the end, where I, way too often, get caught up in a "I'm too busy" vibe where I classify people too casually without truly giving them the benifit of a doubt. Too often, I get lazy and just go on feeling and vibe. BTW, it wasn't boring, but there were a few times I felt like screaming at you BLUES! MUSIC! LIFE! Not to worry thoughyou knew what you were doing and why you were doing it. So, have you planned out the where and when of you next recording? Let's take this off line. Besides, all this bromance probably has folks going "get a room" as it is. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > Hey Joe, > > You have always been a positive force for me here. I got the questions > answered I wanted to. It must seem weird from the outside, but I got the > closure I sought. I had to dig a little and it must have been boring for > everyone else, sorry for that. > > Why did I need to find out what must seem obvious to you? One of life's > mysteries I guess! I just had a last stone to turn over. I believe in the > possibility for people making a change if they get a chance. But now I know. > > I appreciate your reminders about our precious time. I could only groove in > my latest John Hurt song so many times before my fingers needed a break > anyway! > > It is a new day brother, how about that Tony, the little rascal! > > > > > > > Shame on me Curtis. I should have read your last paragraph (below): > > > > >I see you with much better clarity Judy, I'm glad we had this little > > >exchange. > > The compliment that you seem to have trouble with in the last post is that > > you > > keep the ball in play. The same compliment I have always paid you. But the > > fact that you include negative vague accusations makes dealing with you > > difficult and annoying. Just as I said in one of my first posts back here.> > > > > Bingo! So maybe all that time in the vortex was worth it? Now you can put > > it all away in the "been there, done that" file and get back to playing, > > recording, screwing, eating. > > all the things that make life worth living and you one of the great > > contributors toLife! > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > Just as I thought Judy, no smoking gun, just your own self created > > > animosity. There is nothing in those posts to support any of your vague > > > innuendo charges. > > > > > > > Sometimes it's just plain nastiness, other times it's > > > > pretty gross intellectual dishonesty. > > > > > > Lets see some of these that were not in direct response to your treating > > > me poorly. Again with the vaguely insulting accusations with zero > > > evidence. > > > > > > Your fantasy isn't holding up under closer scrutiny. The reason I dug > > > this up is because I never have understood how you turn on me after a few > > > friendly posts. Now I know it is just an old grudge. One you created on > > > your own. I re-read them and it is as I remember it. > > > > > > My best guess is that you don't even know what your problem is with me. > > > It is just a locked-in feeling that hasn't seen the light of day for a > > > while, with no specific reference point. > > > > > > The last post also contains unspecified claim of my "dishonesty" without > > > proof. It deserved no response because there is none except this: show > > > me one example. > > > > > > So to recap. You claimed that I had said things after you had warned me > > > that caused you to go off on me, and it was my fault because of the > > > specific things I said after your warning. But you can produce none > > > except the whole posts which I re-read and say nothing more than me > > > trying to figure out what set you off. You have failed to show me one > > > example of what you claim. But you think that maybe another vague charge > > > of nastiness and dishonest will distract me from your failure to produce > > > any evidence for your insult? > > > > > > You should have taken the better road on this one Judy. But having > > > re-read your responses, I am not surprised. You've been running the > > > smoke and mirrors animosity program for a while now. > > > > > > But better yet, prove me wrong with specific example so compelling that > > > any reasonable person will take your side. > > > > > > From the last post you referenced: > > > ME:> I still would like to know what upset you about my post. > > > > > > Judy:I wasn't "upset" by it, Curtis. Mildly disappointed, > > > but not surprised, that you hadn't changed, as I said > > > to start with. > > > > > > So the whole thing about me having to take responsibility for you getting > > > upset was all bullshit t
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: Hey Joe, You have always been a positive force for me here. I got the questions answered I wanted to. It must seem weird from the outside, but I got the closure I sought. I had to dig a little and it must have been boring for everyone else, sorry for that. Why did I need to find out what must seem obvious to you? One of life's mysteries I guess! I just had a last stone to turn over. I believe in the possibility for people making a change if they get a chance. But now I know. I appreciate your reminders about our precious time. I could only groove in my latest John Hurt song so many times before my fingers needed a break anyway! It is a new day brother, how about that Tony, the little rascal! > > Shame on me Curtis. I should have read your last paragraph (below): > > >I see you with much better clarity Judy, I'm glad we had this little > >exchange. > The compliment that you seem to have trouble with in the last post is that you > keep the ball in play. The same compliment I have always paid you. But the > fact that you include negative vague accusations makes dealing with you > difficult and annoying. Just as I said in one of my first posts back here.> > > Bingo! So maybe all that time in the vortex was worth it? Now you can put it > all away in the "been there, done that" file and get back to playing, > recording, screwing, eating. > all the things that make life worth living and you one of the great > contributors toLife! > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Just as I thought Judy, no smoking gun, just your own self created > > animosity. There is nothing in those posts to support any of your vague > > innuendo charges. > > > > > Sometimes it's just plain nastiness, other times it's > > > pretty gross intellectual dishonesty. > > > > Lets see some of these that were not in direct response to your treating me > > poorly. Again with the vaguely insulting accusations with zero evidence. > > > > Your fantasy isn't holding up under closer scrutiny. The reason I dug this > > up is because I never have understood how you turn on me after a few > > friendly posts. Now I know it is just an old grudge. One you created on > > your own. I re-read them and it is as I remember it. > > > > My best guess is that you don't even know what your problem is with me. It > > is just a locked-in feeling that hasn't seen the light of day for a while, > > with no specific reference point. > > > > The last post also contains unspecified claim of my "dishonesty" without > > proof. It deserved no response because there is none except this: show me > > one example. > > > > So to recap. You claimed that I had said things after you had warned me > > that caused you to go off on me, and it was my fault because of the > > specific things I said after your warning. But you can produce none except > > the whole posts which I re-read and say nothing more than me trying to > > figure out what set you off. You have failed to show me one example of > > what you claim. But you think that maybe another vague charge of nastiness > > and dishonest will distract me from your failure to produce any evidence > > for your insult? > > > > You should have taken the better road on this one Judy. But having re-read > > your responses, I am not surprised. You've been running the smoke and > > mirrors animosity program for a while now. > > > > But better yet, prove me wrong with specific example so compelling that any > > reasonable person will take your side. > > > > From the last post you referenced: > > ME:> I still would like to know what upset you about my post. > > > > Judy:I wasn't "upset" by it, Curtis. Mildly disappointed, > > but not surprised, that you hadn't changed, as I said > > to start with. > > > > So the whole thing about me having to take responsibility for you getting > > upset was all bullshit too? There was never anything for me to own up to > > for provoking you. You were never upset by anything I said, just > > "disappointed." And when everyone said they thought you were acting > > unfairly to me, that had nothing to do with me setting you up. It was all > > you and your fantasy all along. Nursing a grudge from almost a decade past. > > > > I see you with much better clarity Judy, I'm glad we had this little > > exchange. The compliment that you seem to have trouble with in the last > > post is that you keep the ball in play. The same compliment I have always > > paid you. But the fact that you include negative vague accusations makes > > dealing with you difficult and annoying. Just as I said in one of my first > > posts back here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
Ahem. He figured you out and summed you up neat and cleanand you find it a bit scary don't you? It shows. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Curtis, your dishonesty in this post is so pervasive > and convoluted I'm not even going to try to unravel > it. You'd just snarl it right back up again worse > than before. > > As I said back then, it isn't clear whether you're > well aware of how grossly you've twisted things, or > whether you've just done a magnificently effective > snowjob on yourself. > > If it's the former, it's digusting. If it's the > latter, it's pitiable. > > Whichever, you get to live with it. I'm done. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Just as I thought Judy, no smoking gun, just your own self created > > animosity. There is nothing in those posts to support any of your vague > > innuendo charges. > > > > > Sometimes it's just plain nastiness, other times it's > > > pretty gross intellectual dishonesty. > > > > Lets see some of these that were not in direct response to your treating me > > poorly. Again with the vaguely insulting accusations with zero evidence. > > > > Your fantasy isn't holding up under closer scrutiny. The reason I dug this > > up is because I never have understood how you turn on me after a few > > friendly posts. Now I know it is just an old grudge. One you created on > > your own. I re-read them and it is as I remember it. > > > > My best guess is that you don't even know what your problem is with me. It > > is just a locked-in feeling that hasn't seen the light of day for a while, > > with no specific reference point. > > > > The last post also contains unspecified claim of my "dishonesty" without > > proof. It deserved no response because there is none except this: show me > > one example. > > > > So to recap. You claimed that I had said things after you had warned me > > that caused you to go off on me, and it was my fault because of the > > specific things I said after your warning. But you can produce none except > > the whole posts which I re-read and say nothing more than me trying to > > figure out what set you off. You have failed to show me one example of > > what you claim. But you think that maybe another vague charge of nastiness > > and dishonest will distract me from your failure to produce any evidence > > for your insult? > > > > You should have taken the better road on this one Judy. But having re-read > > your responses, I am not surprised. You've been running the smoke and > > mirrors animosity program for a while now. > > > > But better yet, prove me wrong with specific example so compelling that any > > reasonable person will take your side. > > > > From the last post you referenced: > > ME:> I still would like to know what upset you about my post. > > > > Judy:I wasn't "upset" by it, Curtis. Mildly disappointed, > > but not surprised, that you hadn't changed, as I said > > to start with. > > > > So the whole thing about me having to take responsibility for you getting > > upset was all bullshit too? There was never anything for me to own up to > > for provoking you. You were never upset by anything I said, just > > "disappointed." And when everyone said they thought you were acting > > unfairly to me, that had nothing to do with me setting you up. It was all > > you and your fantasy all along. Nursing a grudge from almost a decade past. > > > > I see you with much better clarity Judy, I'm glad we had this little > > exchange. The compliment that you seem to have trouble with in the last > > post is that you keep the ball in play. The same compliment I have always > > paid you. But the fact that you include negative vague accusations makes > > dealing with you difficult and annoying. Just as I said in one of my first > > posts back here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > You disappoint me every time you drop the oh-so- > > > > > charming facade you showed up with here and let us > > > > > see what's underneath (which is what I had been > > > > > familiar with from alt.m.t). > > > > > > > > I would like to see an example of what I have been saying > > > > that is so horrible, my underneath. > > > > > > Have a look at the exchange quoted below for a number > > > of examples. > > > > > > Sometimes it's just plain nastiness, other times it's > > > pretty gross intellectual dishonesty. > > > > > > > While you are at it you can give some of the grievous > > > > examples of what I wrote after your warning that forced > > > > you over the edge against your will. I would like to > > > > see some examples of things I said that could be used > > > > as
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
Shame on me Curtis. I should have read your last paragraph (below): >I see you with much better clarity Judy, I'm glad we had this little exchange. The compliment that you seem to have trouble with in the last post is that you keep the ball in play. The same compliment I have always paid you. But the fact that you include negative vague accusations makes dealing with you difficult and annoying. Just as I said in one of my first posts back here.> Bingo! So maybe all that time in the vortex was worth it? Now you can put it all away in the "been there, done that" file and get back to playing, recording, screwing, eating. all the things that make life worth living and you one of the great contributors toLife! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Just as I thought Judy, no smoking gun, just your own self created animosity. > There is nothing in those posts to support any of your vague innuendo > charges. > > > Sometimes it's just plain nastiness, other times it's > > pretty gross intellectual dishonesty. > > Lets see some of these that were not in direct response to your treating me > poorly. Again with the vaguely insulting accusations with zero evidence. > > Your fantasy isn't holding up under closer scrutiny. The reason I dug this > up is because I never have understood how you turn on me after a few friendly > posts. Now I know it is just an old grudge. One you created on your own. I > re-read them and it is as I remember it. > > My best guess is that you don't even know what your problem is with me. It > is just a locked-in feeling that hasn't seen the light of day for a while, > with no specific reference point. > > The last post also contains unspecified claim of my "dishonesty" without > proof. It deserved no response because there is none except this: show me > one example. > > So to recap. You claimed that I had said things after you had warned me that > caused you to go off on me, and it was my fault because of the specific > things I said after your warning. But you can produce none except the whole > posts which I re-read and say nothing more than me trying to figure out what > set you off. You have failed to show me one example of what you claim. But > you think that maybe another vague charge of nastiness and dishonest will > distract me from your failure to produce any evidence for your insult? > > You should have taken the better road on this one Judy. But having re-read > your responses, I am not surprised. You've been running the smoke and > mirrors animosity program for a while now. > > But better yet, prove me wrong with specific example so compelling that any > reasonable person will take your side. > > From the last post you referenced: > ME:> I still would like to know what upset you about my post. > > Judy:I wasn't "upset" by it, Curtis. Mildly disappointed, > but not surprised, that you hadn't changed, as I said > to start with. > > So the whole thing about me having to take responsibility for you getting > upset was all bullshit too? There was never anything for me to own up to for > provoking you. You were never upset by anything I said, just "disappointed." > And when everyone said they thought you were acting unfairly to me, that had > nothing to do with me setting you up. It was all you and your fantasy all > along. Nursing a grudge from almost a decade past. > > I see you with much better clarity Judy, I'm glad we had this little > exchange. The compliment that you seem to have trouble with in the last post > is that you keep the ball in play. The same compliment I have always paid > you. But the fact that you include negative vague accusations makes dealing > with you difficult and annoying. Just as I said in one of my first posts > back here. > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > You disappoint me every time you drop the oh-so- > > > > charming facade you showed up with here and let us > > > > see what's underneath (which is what I had been > > > > familiar with from alt.m.t). > > > > > > I would like to see an example of what I have been saying > > > that is so horrible, my underneath. > > > > Have a look at the exchange quoted below for a number > > of examples. > > > > Sometimes it's just plain nastiness, other times it's > > pretty gross intellectual dishonesty. > > > > > While you are at it you can give some of the grievous > > > examples of what I wrote after your warning that forced > > > you over the edge against your will. I would like to > > > see some examples of things I said that could be used > > > as evidence for a reasonable person to become unpleasant > > > in an online discussion. What was the trigger that you > > > have alluded to so o
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
Man Curtis, all this time caught in the endless Judy debate autopsy vortex. That's time you could have been playing or recording or screwing or eating or..anything but this. And that's time you can never get back my friend! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Just as I thought Judy, no smoking gun, just your own self created animosity. > There is nothing in those posts to support any of your vague innuendo > charges. > > > Sometimes it's just plain nastiness, other times it's > > pretty gross intellectual dishonesty. > > Lets see some of these that were not in direct response to your treating me > poorly. Again with the vaguely insulting accusations with zero evidence. > > Your fantasy isn't holding up under closer scrutiny. The reason I dug this > up is because I never have understood how you turn on me after a few friendly > posts. Now I know it is just an old grudge. One you created on your own. I > re-read them and it is as I remember it. > > My best guess is that you don't even know what your problem is with me. It > is just a locked-in feeling that hasn't seen the light of day for a while, > with no specific reference point. > > The last post also contains unspecified claim of my "dishonesty" without > proof. It deserved no response because there is none except this: show me > one example. > > So to recap. You claimed that I had said things after you had warned me that > caused you to go off on me, and it was my fault because of the specific > things I said after your warning. But you can produce none except the whole > posts which I re-read and say nothing more than me trying to figure out what > set you off. You have failed to show me one example of what you claim. But > you think that maybe another vague charge of nastiness and dishonest will > distract me from your failure to produce any evidence for your insult? > > You should have taken the better road on this one Judy. But having re-read > your responses, I am not surprised. You've been running the smoke and > mirrors animosity program for a while now. > > But better yet, prove me wrong with specific example so compelling that any > reasonable person will take your side. > > From the last post you referenced: > ME:> I still would like to know what upset you about my post. > > Judy:I wasn't "upset" by it, Curtis. Mildly disappointed, > but not surprised, that you hadn't changed, as I said > to start with. > > So the whole thing about me having to take responsibility for you getting > upset was all bullshit too? There was never anything for me to own up to for > provoking you. You were never upset by anything I said, just "disappointed." > And when everyone said they thought you were acting unfairly to me, that had > nothing to do with me setting you up. It was all you and your fantasy all > along. Nursing a grudge from almost a decade past. > > I see you with much better clarity Judy, I'm glad we had this little > exchange. The compliment that you seem to have trouble with in the last post > is that you keep the ball in play. The same compliment I have always paid > you. But the fact that you include negative vague accusations makes dealing > with you difficult and annoying. Just as I said in one of my first posts > back here. > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > You disappoint me every time you drop the oh-so- > > > > charming facade you showed up with here and let us > > > > see what's underneath (which is what I had been > > > > familiar with from alt.m.t). > > > > > > I would like to see an example of what I have been saying > > > that is so horrible, my underneath. > > > > Have a look at the exchange quoted below for a number > > of examples. > > > > Sometimes it's just plain nastiness, other times it's > > pretty gross intellectual dishonesty. > > > > > While you are at it you can give some of the grievous > > > examples of what I wrote after your warning that forced > > > you over the edge against your will. I would like to > > > see some examples of things I said that could be used > > > as evidence for a reasonable person to become unpleasant > > > in an online discussion. What was the trigger that you > > > have alluded to so often but not produced for examination? > > > > "Not produced for examination"? I even gave you the > > post number. Then I quoted it (see below). And you > > already knew what it was: > > > > "I've never understood why you took such offense to me > > telling you that I used to get pissed off at you and it > > made me write more back in the ALT Med era. I remember > > that as a key point in the breaking of our initial > > rapport." > > > > Or if you mean what was the last straw after I'd warne
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: Zero evidence for your baseless, unpleasant claims. Nice try at the offense-defense. That used to work pretty well till we nailed it down to a simple request for supporting evidence. And you had none. "I'm done." You sure are Judy. > > Curtis, your dishonesty in this post is so pervasive > and convoluted I'm not even going to try to unravel > it. You'd just snarl it right back up again worse > than before. > > As I said back then, it isn't clear whether you're > well aware of how grossly you've twisted things, or > whether you've just done a magnificently effective > snowjob on yourself. > > If it's the former, it's digusting. If it's the > latter, it's pitiable. > > Whichever, you get to live with it. I'm done. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Just as I thought Judy, no smoking gun, just your own self created > > animosity. There is nothing in those posts to support any of your vague > > innuendo charges. > > > > > Sometimes it's just plain nastiness, other times it's > > > pretty gross intellectual dishonesty. > > > > Lets see some of these that were not in direct response to your treating me > > poorly. Again with the vaguely insulting accusations with zero evidence. > > > > Your fantasy isn't holding up under closer scrutiny. The reason I dug this > > up is because I never have understood how you turn on me after a few > > friendly posts. Now I know it is just an old grudge. One you created on > > your own. I re-read them and it is as I remember it. > > > > My best guess is that you don't even know what your problem is with me. It > > is just a locked-in feeling that hasn't seen the light of day for a while, > > with no specific reference point. > > > > The last post also contains unspecified claim of my "dishonesty" without > > proof. It deserved no response because there is none except this: show me > > one example. > > > > So to recap. You claimed that I had said things after you had warned me > > that caused you to go off on me, and it was my fault because of the > > specific things I said after your warning. But you can produce none except > > the whole posts which I re-read and say nothing more than me trying to > > figure out what set you off. You have failed to show me one example of > > what you claim. But you think that maybe another vague charge of nastiness > > and dishonest will distract me from your failure to produce any evidence > > for your insult? > > > > You should have taken the better road on this one Judy. But having re-read > > your responses, I am not surprised. You've been running the smoke and > > mirrors animosity program for a while now. > > > > But better yet, prove me wrong with specific example so compelling that any > > reasonable person will take your side. > > > > From the last post you referenced: > > ME:> I still would like to know what upset you about my post. > > > > Judy:I wasn't "upset" by it, Curtis. Mildly disappointed, > > but not surprised, that you hadn't changed, as I said > > to start with. > > > > So the whole thing about me having to take responsibility for you getting > > upset was all bullshit too? There was never anything for me to own up to > > for provoking you. You were never upset by anything I said, just > > "disappointed." And when everyone said they thought you were acting > > unfairly to me, that had nothing to do with me setting you up. It was all > > you and your fantasy all along. Nursing a grudge from almost a decade past. > > > > I see you with much better clarity Judy, I'm glad we had this little > > exchange. The compliment that you seem to have trouble with in the last > > post is that you keep the ball in play. The same compliment I have always > > paid you. But the fact that you include negative vague accusations makes > > dealing with you difficult and annoying. Just as I said in one of my first > > posts back here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > You disappoint me every time you drop the oh-so- > > > > > charming facade you showed up with here and let us > > > > > see what's underneath (which is what I had been > > > > > familiar with from alt.m.t). > > > > > > > > I would like to see an example of what I have been saying > > > > that is so horrible, my underneath. > > > > > > Have a look at the exchange quoted below for a number > > > of examples. > > > > > > Sometimes it's just plain nastiness, other times it's > > > pretty gross intellectual dishonesty. > > > > > > > While you are at it you can give some of the grievous > > > > examples of what I wrote after your warning that forced > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
Curtis, your dishonesty in this post is so pervasive and convoluted I'm not even going to try to unravel it. You'd just snarl it right back up again worse than before. As I said back then, it isn't clear whether you're well aware of how grossly you've twisted things, or whether you've just done a magnificently effective snowjob on yourself. If it's the former, it's digusting. If it's the latter, it's pitiable. Whichever, you get to live with it. I'm done. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Just as I thought Judy, no smoking gun, just your own self created animosity. > There is nothing in those posts to support any of your vague innuendo > charges. > > > Sometimes it's just plain nastiness, other times it's > > pretty gross intellectual dishonesty. > > Lets see some of these that were not in direct response to your treating me > poorly. Again with the vaguely insulting accusations with zero evidence. > > Your fantasy isn't holding up under closer scrutiny. The reason I dug this > up is because I never have understood how you turn on me after a few friendly > posts. Now I know it is just an old grudge. One you created on your own. I > re-read them and it is as I remember it. > > My best guess is that you don't even know what your problem is with me. It > is just a locked-in feeling that hasn't seen the light of day for a while, > with no specific reference point. > > The last post also contains unspecified claim of my "dishonesty" without > proof. It deserved no response because there is none except this: show me > one example. > > So to recap. You claimed that I had said things after you had warned me that > caused you to go off on me, and it was my fault because of the specific > things I said after your warning. But you can produce none except the whole > posts which I re-read and say nothing more than me trying to figure out what > set you off. You have failed to show me one example of what you claim. But > you think that maybe another vague charge of nastiness and dishonest will > distract me from your failure to produce any evidence for your insult? > > You should have taken the better road on this one Judy. But having re-read > your responses, I am not surprised. You've been running the smoke and > mirrors animosity program for a while now. > > But better yet, prove me wrong with specific example so compelling that any > reasonable person will take your side. > > From the last post you referenced: > ME:> I still would like to know what upset you about my post. > > Judy:I wasn't "upset" by it, Curtis. Mildly disappointed, > but not surprised, that you hadn't changed, as I said > to start with. > > So the whole thing about me having to take responsibility for you getting > upset was all bullshit too? There was never anything for me to own up to for > provoking you. You were never upset by anything I said, just "disappointed." > And when everyone said they thought you were acting unfairly to me, that had > nothing to do with me setting you up. It was all you and your fantasy all > along. Nursing a grudge from almost a decade past. > > I see you with much better clarity Judy, I'm glad we had this little > exchange. The compliment that you seem to have trouble with in the last post > is that you keep the ball in play. The same compliment I have always paid > you. But the fact that you include negative vague accusations makes dealing > with you difficult and annoying. Just as I said in one of my first posts > back here. > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > You disappoint me every time you drop the oh-so- > > > > charming facade you showed up with here and let us > > > > see what's underneath (which is what I had been > > > > familiar with from alt.m.t). > > > > > > I would like to see an example of what I have been saying > > > that is so horrible, my underneath. > > > > Have a look at the exchange quoted below for a number > > of examples. > > > > Sometimes it's just plain nastiness, other times it's > > pretty gross intellectual dishonesty. > > > > > While you are at it you can give some of the grievous > > > examples of what I wrote after your warning that forced > > > you over the edge against your will. I would like to > > > see some examples of things I said that could be used > > > as evidence for a reasonable person to become unpleasant > > > in an online discussion. What was the trigger that you > > > have alluded to so often but not produced for examination? > > > > "Not produced for examination"? I even gave you the > > post number. Then I quoted it (see below). And you > > already knew what it was: > > > > "I've never understood why you took such offense to me > > telling yo
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: Just as I thought Judy, no smoking gun, just your own self created animosity. There is nothing in those posts to support any of your vague innuendo charges. > Sometimes it's just plain nastiness, other times it's > pretty gross intellectual dishonesty. Lets see some of these that were not in direct response to your treating me poorly. Again with the vaguely insulting accusations with zero evidence. Your fantasy isn't holding up under closer scrutiny. The reason I dug this up is because I never have understood how you turn on me after a few friendly posts. Now I know it is just an old grudge. One you created on your own. I re-read them and it is as I remember it. My best guess is that you don't even know what your problem is with me. It is just a locked-in feeling that hasn't seen the light of day for a while, with no specific reference point. The last post also contains unspecified claim of my "dishonesty" without proof. It deserved no response because there is none except this: show me one example. So to recap. You claimed that I had said things after you had warned me that caused you to go off on me, and it was my fault because of the specific things I said after your warning. But you can produce none except the whole posts which I re-read and say nothing more than me trying to figure out what set you off. You have failed to show me one example of what you claim. But you think that maybe another vague charge of nastiness and dishonest will distract me from your failure to produce any evidence for your insult? You should have taken the better road on this one Judy. But having re-read your responses, I am not surprised. You've been running the smoke and mirrors animosity program for a while now. But better yet, prove me wrong with specific example so compelling that any reasonable person will take your side. >From the last post you referenced: ME:> I still would like to know what upset you about my post. Judy:I wasn't "upset" by it, Curtis. Mildly disappointed, but not surprised, that you hadn't changed, as I said to start with. So the whole thing about me having to take responsibility for you getting upset was all bullshit too? There was never anything for me to own up to for provoking you. You were never upset by anything I said, just "disappointed." And when everyone said they thought you were acting unfairly to me, that had nothing to do with me setting you up. It was all you and your fantasy all along. Nursing a grudge from almost a decade past. I see you with much better clarity Judy, I'm glad we had this little exchange. The compliment that you seem to have trouble with in the last post is that you keep the ball in play. The same compliment I have always paid you. But the fact that you include negative vague accusations makes dealing with you difficult and annoying. Just as I said in one of my first posts back here. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > You disappoint me every time you drop the oh-so- > > > charming facade you showed up with here and let us > > > see what's underneath (which is what I had been > > > familiar with from alt.m.t). > > > > I would like to see an example of what I have been saying > > that is so horrible, my underneath. > > Have a look at the exchange quoted below for a number > of examples. > > Sometimes it's just plain nastiness, other times it's > pretty gross intellectual dishonesty. > > > While you are at it you can give some of the grievous > > examples of what I wrote after your warning that forced > > you over the edge against your will. I would like to > > see some examples of things I said that could be used > > as evidence for a reasonable person to become unpleasant > > in an online discussion. What was the trigger that you > > have alluded to so often but not produced for examination? > > "Not produced for examination"? I even gave you the > post number. Then I quoted it (see below). And you > already knew what it was: > > "I've never understood why you took such offense to me > telling you that I used to get pissed off at you and it > made me write more back in the ALT Med era. I remember > that as a key point in the breaking of our initial > rapport." > > Or if you mean what was the last straw after I'd warned > you off, start with post #97529, the first in the "Hi > from Curtis" thread, and you'll see how it developed. > You have to see the posts in context; isolated quotes > won't give you the picture. > > It pretty much ends with my post #97718, to which you > never responded. > > > > > > As far as you trying to tell me how I felt about AMT, whether it was a > > blast for me or not...that is for me, not you do decide. Obviously I > > enjoyed it enough to carry one a very long posting relationship wi
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > You disappoint me every time you drop the oh-so- > > charming facade you showed up with here and let us > > see what's underneath (which is what I had been > > familiar with from alt.m.t). > > I would like to see an example of what I have been saying > that is so horrible, my underneath. Have a look at the exchange quoted below for a number of examples. Sometimes it's just plain nastiness, other times it's pretty gross intellectual dishonesty. > While you are at it you can give some of the grievous > examples of what I wrote after your warning that forced > you over the edge against your will. I would like to > see some examples of things I said that could be used > as evidence for a reasonable person to become unpleasant > in an online discussion. What was the trigger that you > have alluded to so often but not produced for examination? "Not produced for examination"? I even gave you the post number. Then I quoted it (see below). And you already knew what it was: "I've never understood why you took such offense to me telling you that I used to get pissed off at you and it made me write more back in the ALT Med era. I remember that as a key point in the breaking of our initial rapport." Or if you mean what was the last straw after I'd warned you off, start with post #97529, the first in the "Hi from Curtis" thread, and you'll see how it developed. You have to see the posts in context; isolated quotes won't give you the picture. It pretty much ends with my post #97718, to which you never responded. > As far as you trying to tell me how I felt about AMT, whether it was a blast > for me or not...that is for me, not you do decide. Obviously I enjoyed it > enough to carry one a very long posting relationship with you Judy. I have > repeatedly explained the value of it for me. I said everything I wanted to > say to you right then and there, I came here with no unfinished business with > you. As you well know my overtures to create a more cordial relationship > extended beyond FFL at the time. What I said was what I meant, interacting > with you on AMT was difficult and often unpleasant. But I got a lot out of > it. The idea that this is a cover for a hidden agenda is something you are > making up. > > > "I look back on the AMT days as an important > > experience for me.There were times when I > > felt misunderstood and very frustrated, but > > that stressful dynamic was the reason I kept > > at it so long. It was incredibly useful for > > me to articulate my thoughts about the > > movement in such detail, and it never would > > have happened without me being so pissed off > > at your messages." > > > > Misunderstood, frustrated, stressed out, and > > pissed off. Oh, and relentlessly attacked > > to boot. Some blast. > > Nice spin avoiding the more substantial and important to me, "Incredibly > useful to articulate my thoughts about the movement in such detail." Many of > my posts had the same humor I post with here and I had my fans just as you > did for the writing produced. So yes Judy I did have a blast. And if you are > somehow unaware of how you came across in those days, that is a glaring gap > in your self perception. Now if you wanted to counter charge me with > everything I said to you, I wouldn't complain. I gave as good as I got and > had fun doing it. And we both felt justified and like we came out ahead in > the debates. Very human of us. > > When I came here I was new to this group and was feeling my way. It had been > many years since I had communicated with you and was happy to find a fresh > perspective to communicate from with you. Many of our interactions here have > that fresh quality. More respect. I prefer that. I'm not sure you do. I am > coming to think that you have to demonize me somehow as intrinsically bad > underneath. > > Of course I could be persuaded with some of your evidence of my wickedness. > You are a good archivest, lets see some quotes. The kind that would make a > sweet good natured poster here get uncontrollably angry. So far your only > charge is a sin of omission, me not taking responsibility for your anger. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > You warned me that you couldn't control your vitriol > > > > > towards me and I didn't care if you went off. > > > > > > > > No. I said I *was* controlling it, and that you > > > > might want to think about whether you really > > > > wanted to set me off. > > > > > > ME set YOU off. Thanks for giving me all your power. > > > > Everybody has their limits, Curtis. I told you where > > mine were, but you refused to respect them. > > > > > > Obviously, you did want to set me off. You kept >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > Here's the thing Curtis. You enjoy process. Clearly you > find value and perhaps the occasional "a ha" moment from > the process of a good debate. > > Judy is interested primarily in "winning" judging by her > reaction to you here (and of course many other threads.) Gee, Geeze, seeing as how you've been forced to read all my posts, it's kind of surprising that you've missed all the perfectly cordial discussions I've had with Curtis, and with others as well (I'm having one right now with Irmeli). Curtis and I were having a fine old time talking about the Great Marriage Secrecy Scandal until he let loose with his "Mommy/Daddy" whine in another thread, which ended up reopening a nasty can of worms from the past. Could it possibly be the case that you suffer from confirmation bias?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
Here's the thing Curtis. You enjoy process. Clearly you find value and perhaps the occasional "a ha" moment from the process of a good debate. Judy is interested primarily in "winning" judging by her reaction to you here (and of course many other threads.) --- In fairfieldl...@yahoogrou ps.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > You disappoint me every time you drop the oh-so- > > charming facade you showed up with here and let us > > see what's underneath (which is what I had been > > familiar with from alt.m.t). > > I would like to see an example of what I have been saying that is so > horrible, my underneath. While you are at it you can give some of the > grievous examples of what I wrote after your warning that forced you over the > edge against your will. I would like to see some examples of things I said > that could be used as evidence for a reasonable person to become unpleasant > in an online discussion. What was the trigger that you have alluded to so > often but not produced for examination? > > As far as you trying to tell me how I felt about AMT, whether it was a blast > for me or not...that is for me, not you do decide. Obviously I enjoyed it > enough to carry one a very long posting relationship with you Judy. I have > repeatedly explained the value of it for me. I said everything I wanted to > say to you right then and there, I came here with no unfinished business with > you. As you well know my overtures to create a more cordial relationship > extended beyond FFL at the time. What I said was what I meant, interacting > with you on AMT was difficult and often unpleasant. But I got a lot out of > it. The idea that this is a cover for a hidden agenda is something you are > making up. > > > "I look back on the AMT days as an important > > experience for me.There were times when I > > felt misunderstood and very frustrated, but > > that stressful dynamic was the reason I kept > > at it so long. It was incredibly useful for > > me to articulate my thoughts about the > > movement in such detail, and it never would > > have happened without me being so pissed off > > at your messages." > > > > Misunderstood, frustrated, stressed out, and > > pissed off. Oh, and relentlessly attacked > > to boot. Some blast. > > Nice spin avoiding the more substantial and important to me, "Incredibly > useful to articulate my thoughts about the movement in such detail." Many of > my posts had the same humor I post with here and I had my fans just as you > did for the writing produced. So yes Judy I did have a blast. And if you are > somehow unaware of how you came across in those days, that is a glaring gap > in your self perception. Now if you wanted to counter charge me with > everything I said to you, I wouldn't complain. I gave as good as I got and > had fun doing it. And we both felt justified and like we came out ahead in > the debates. Very human of us. > > When I came here I was new to this group and was feeling my way. It had been > many years since I had communicated with you and was happy to find a fresh > perspective to communicate from with you. Many of our interactions here have > that fresh quality. More respect. I prefer that. I'm not sure you do. I am > coming to think that you have to demonize me somehow as intrinsically bad > underneath. > > Of course I could be persuaded with some of your evidence of my wickedness. > You are a good archivest, lets see some quotes. The kind that would make a > sweet good natured poster here get uncontrollably angry. So far your only > charge is a sin of omission, me not taking responsibility for your anger. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > You warned me that you couldn't control your vitriol > > > > > towards me and I didn't care if you went off. > > > > > > > > No. I said I *was* controlling it, and that you > > > > might want to think about whether you really > > > > wanted to set me off. > > > > > > ME set YOU off. Thanks for giving me all your power. > > > > Everybody has their limits, Curtis. I told you where > > mine were, but you refused to respect them. > > > > > > Obviously, you did want to set me off. You kept > > > > working at it, and eventually you succeeded. > > > > > > Everybody needs a dream. I wanted to be the one > > > person in the history of a TM discussion board to > > > set you off. It was an almost insurmountable task > > > and I know that many had failed in the past, but I > > > put my heart and soul into it. Yup. One might > > > even say you were a victim. > > > > Sez Curtis, neatly sidestepping the point. > > > > > > > And as predicted, you did. The group didn't dig it > > > > > and said so. Then you tried to pin it all on me, > > > > > which failed
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > You disappoint me every time you drop the oh-so- > charming facade you showed up with here and let us > see what's underneath (which is what I had been > familiar with from alt.m.t). I would like to see an example of what I have been saying that is so horrible, my underneath. While you are at it you can give some of the grievous examples of what I wrote after your warning that forced you over the edge against your will. I would like to see some examples of things I said that could be used as evidence for a reasonable person to become unpleasant in an online discussion. What was the trigger that you have alluded to so often but not produced for examination? As far as you trying to tell me how I felt about AMT, whether it was a blast for me or not...that is for me, not you do decide. Obviously I enjoyed it enough to carry one a very long posting relationship with you Judy. I have repeatedly explained the value of it for me. I said everything I wanted to say to you right then and there, I came here with no unfinished business with you. As you well know my overtures to create a more cordial relationship extended beyond FFL at the time. What I said was what I meant, interacting with you on AMT was difficult and often unpleasant. But I got a lot out of it. The idea that this is a cover for a hidden agenda is something you are making up. > "I look back on the AMT days as an important > experience for me.There were times when I > felt misunderstood and very frustrated, but > that stressful dynamic was the reason I kept > at it so long. It was incredibly useful for > me to articulate my thoughts about the > movement in such detail, and it never would > have happened without me being so pissed off > at your messages." > > Misunderstood, frustrated, stressed out, and > pissed off. Oh, and relentlessly attacked > to boot. Some blast. Nice spin avoiding the more substantial and important to me, "Incredibly useful to articulate my thoughts about the movement in such detail." Many of my posts had the same humor I post with here and I had my fans just as you did for the writing produced. So yes Judy I did have a blast. And if you are somehow unaware of how you came across in those days, that is a glaring gap in your self perception. Now if you wanted to counter charge me with everything I said to you, I wouldn't complain. I gave as good as I got and had fun doing it. And we both felt justified and like we came out ahead in the debates. Very human of us. When I came here I was new to this group and was feeling my way. It had been many years since I had communicated with you and was happy to find a fresh perspective to communicate from with you. Many of our interactions here have that fresh quality. More respect. I prefer that. I'm not sure you do. I am coming to think that you have to demonize me somehow as intrinsically bad underneath. Of course I could be persuaded with some of your evidence of my wickedness. You are a good archivest, lets see some quotes. The kind that would make a sweet good natured poster here get uncontrollably angry. So far your only charge is a sin of omission, me not taking responsibility for your anger. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > You warned me that you couldn't control your vitriol > > > > towards me and I didn't care if you went off. > > > > > > No. I said I *was* controlling it, and that you > > > might want to think about whether you really > > > wanted to set me off. > > > > ME set YOU off. Thanks for giving me all your power. > > Everybody has their limits, Curtis. I told you where > mine were, but you refused to respect them. > > > > Obviously, you did want to set me off. You kept > > > working at it, and eventually you succeeded. > > > > Everybody needs a dream. I wanted to be the one > > person in the history of a TM discussion board to > > set you off. It was an almost insurmountable task > > and I know that many had failed in the past, but I > > put my heart and soul into it. Yup. One might > > even say you were a victim. > > Sez Curtis, neatly sidestepping the point. > > > > > And as predicted, you did. The group didn't dig it > > > > and said so. Then you tried to pin it all on me, > > > > which failed since everyone could read all the posts > > > > and decide for themselves. > > > > > > Most people don't read the posts carefully enough to > > > be able to analyze what's going on in an exchange like > > > this. You knew they hadn't gotten it. You engineered > > > the whole thing, getting back at me for our alt.m.t > > > clashes. And that was despite the effort I made when > > > you first joined us here to be cordial. > > > > Nice taking responsibility there Judy. What an evil > > genius I must be in your mind. And you e
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > And of course Curtis and Barry both, when it > > served their self-interest, have insisted that > > similar records of words on a page represent > > what actually happened. > > When if comes to my motives, which was what was most > in question here, I do claim to be the authority. > I know what I felt at the time, why I wrote things, > and how weirded out I got seeing it go so far off > the rails from my own intention. Here's what I said "actually happened": "What actually happened was that I was trying to *avoid* a hassle with you, told you to lay off, and you went right ahead anyway. Folks jumped on me for continuing to try to provoke you when in fact it was just the opposite. You knew that, and you let me take what you knew was a bad rap." This was in response to your reframing: "You made up the shame spin on me not arguing with people who thought you were out of line for giving me shit when I came here." Which conveniently *leaves out* what's so clearly on the record--that I was *restraining* myself from giving you shit, suggesting that you drop it. But you insisted. And that's what folks jumped on me for, giving you the shit I wanted to withhold but that *you* insisted I provide. That is unquestionably what actually happened. Yes, your "motives" per se are my speculation. But your attempt here to reframe what happened doesn't exactly do anything to call that speculation in question. (And BTW, you didn't need to "argue" with anybody, just point out that I had been reluctant but you pushed me into it.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > You warned me that you couldn't control your vitriol > > > towards me and I didn't care if you went off. > > > > No. I said I *was* controlling it, and that you > > might want to think about whether you really > > wanted to set me off. > > ME set YOU off. Thanks for giving me all your power. Everybody has their limits, Curtis. I told you where mine were, but you refused to respect them. > > Obviously, you did want to set me off. You kept > > working at it, and eventually you succeeded. > > Everybody needs a dream. I wanted to be the one > person in the history of a TM discussion board to > set you off. It was an almost insurmountable task > and I know that many had failed in the past, but I > put my heart and soul into it. Yup. One might > even say you were a victim. Sez Curtis, neatly sidestepping the point. > > > And as predicted, you did. The group didn't dig it > > > and said so. Then you tried to pin it all on me, > > > which failed since everyone could read all the posts > > > and decide for themselves. > > > > Most people don't read the posts carefully enough to > > be able to analyze what's going on in an exchange like > > this. You knew they hadn't gotten it. You engineered > > the whole thing, getting back at me for our alt.m.t > > clashes. And that was despite the effort I made when > > you first joined us here to be cordial. > > Nice taking responsibility there Judy. What an evil > genius I must be in your mind. And you even know my > motive for my diabolical scheme! Oh, I don't think you had it planned. Rather, you saw an opportunity, and you ran with it. > I had nothing to get you back for from the past, > I had a blast on AMT and your relentless attacks > were a part of it. I told you that when I joined > here. I mean, who could ever think that you might want to get back at me for those "relentless attacks"? As to your having a "blast": "I look back on the AMT days as an important experience for me.There were times when I felt misunderstood and very frustrated, but that stressful dynamic was the reason I kept at it so long. It was incredibly useful for me to articulate my thoughts about the movement in such detail, and it never would have happened without me being so pissed off at your messages." Misunderstood, frustrated, stressed out, and pissed off. Oh, and relentlessly attacked to boot. Some blast. As I said at the time, you're a master of the backhand. You actually had the stones to pretend you'd intended the above as a *compliment*. > The consensus opinion at the time did not follow > your evil Curtis angle. I seem to have much more > respect for the ability of the posters here to > see through any such bizarre schemes than you do. Especially when their verdict is in your favor, eh? > What went on was obvious and not too subtle > for a casual reader to grasp. We disagree. It wasn't that subtle, but it did require paying attention. (Same deal with those who find Barry's posts "insightful," BTW.) Plus which, a lot of the folks who didn't get why I didn't take what you said as a "compliment" hadn't been on alt.m.t for our exchanges there. They assumed the basis for your being so "pissed off" was that I had "relentlessly attacked" you, rather than that I had been pointing out that a lot of what you said simply wasn't so. > I was disappointed by your reaction then as > I am now. You disappoint me every time you drop the oh-so- charming facade you showed up with here and let us see what's underneath (which is what I had been familiar with from alt.m.t). > > Snip > > > It was Curtis-created. And my expectation was that > > you'd tell the truth about how it developed. > > That was very weird Judy. We will never see eye to eye on this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > And of course Curtis and Barry both, when it > served their self-interest, have insisted that > similar records of words on a page represent > what actually happened. When if comes to my motives, which was what was most in question here, I do claim to be the authority. I know what I felt at the time, why I wrote things, and how weirded out I got seeing it go so far off the rails from my own intention. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > You are expressing your POV which differs from mine. > > > It is very revealing that you would think of it as > > > what "actually" happened. > > > > Ignoring the context, > > Riiight. > > this is an important > > statement on Curtis' part, and IMO nails the > > essential difference between him and others > > on this forum. Curtis would never claim that > > his POV on a subject defined "what actually > > happened." Others *have no problem* making > > this statement. > > > > You see this egoist approach pretty much every > > day on this forum. People (mainly long-term > > TMers) expressing their opinion or POV on a > > subject, or Maharishi's opinion or POV on a > > subject, or the Vedas' opinion or POV on a > > subject, and declaring it, essentially, TRUTH, > > "what actually happens." > > Sez Barry, cleverly ignoring the fact that I > was talking about a record of words on a page > that anyone can read, not an individual POV or > opinion. > > Or does Barry want to claim that the record of > words on a page does not represent what the > posters' fingers typed on their keyboard? > > And of course Curtis and Barry both, when it > served their self-interest, have insisted that > similar records of words on a page represent > what actually happened. (Except that Barry has > been known to lie about what's on the record.) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > You are expressing your POV which differs from mine. > > It is very revealing that you would think of it as > > what "actually" happened. > > Ignoring the context, Riiight. this is an important > statement on Curtis' part, and IMO nails the > essential difference between him and others > on this forum. Curtis would never claim that > his POV on a subject defined "what actually > happened." Others *have no problem* making > this statement. > > You see this egoist approach pretty much every > day on this forum. People (mainly long-term > TMers) expressing their opinion or POV on a > subject, or Maharishi's opinion or POV on a > subject, or the Vedas' opinion or POV on a > subject, and declaring it, essentially, TRUTH, > "what actually happens." Sez Barry, cleverly ignoring the fact that I was talking about a record of words on a page that anyone can read, not an individual POV or opinion. Or does Barry want to claim that the record of words on a page does not represent what the posters' fingers typed on their keyboard? And of course Curtis and Barry both, when it served their self-interest, have insisted that similar records of words on a page represent what actually happened. (Except that Barry has been known to lie about what's on the record.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > You are expressing your POV which differs from mine. > It is very revealing that you would think of it as > what "actually" happened. Ignoring the context, this is an important statement on Curtis' part, and IMO nails the essential difference between him and others on this forum. Curtis would never claim that his POV on a subject defined "what actually happened." Others *have no problem* making this statement. You see this egoist approach pretty much every day on this forum. People (mainly long-term TMers) expressing their opinion or POV on a subject, or Maharishi's opinion or POV on a subject, or the Vedas' opinion or POV on a subject, and declaring it, essentially, TRUTH, "what actually happens." The *least* one can call this behavior is fundamentalism. But I think it goes much fur- ther than that in its implications. As I said to Raunchy yesterday, anyone willing to say that their subjective experience equals "truth" is essentially saying that their subjective POV *defines* "truth." That's not just funda- mentalism, that's outright insanity. That's Son Of Sam material.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > You warned me that you couldn't control your vitriol > > towards me and I didn't care if you went off. > > No. I said I *was* controlling it, and that you > might want to think about whether you really > wanted to set me off. ME set YOU off. Thanks for giving me all your power. > > Obviously, you did want to set me off. You kept > working at it, and eventually you succeeded. Everybody needs a dream. I wanted to be the one person in the history of a TM discussion board to set you off. It was an almost insurmountable task and I know that many had failed in the past, but I put my heart and soul into it. Yup. One might even say you were a victim. > > > And as predicted, you did. The group didn't dig it > > and said so. Then you tried to pin it all on me, > > which failed since everyone could read all the posts > > and decide for themselves. > > Most people don't read the posts carefully enough to > be able to analyze what's going on in an exchange like > this. You knew they hadn't gotten it. You engineered > the whole thing, getting back at me for our alt.m.t > clashes. And that was despite the effort I made when > you first joined us here to be cordial. > Nice taking responsibility there Judy. What an evil genius I must be in your mind. And you even know my motive for my diabolical scheme! I had nothing to get you back for from the past, I had a blast on AMT and your relentless attacks were a part of it. I told you that when I joined here. The consensus opinion at the time did not follow your evil Curtis angle. I seem to have much more respect for the ability of the posters here to see through any such bizarre schemes than you do. What went on was obvious and not too subtle for a casual reader to grasp. I was disappointed by your reaction then as I am now. Snip > It was Curtis-created. And my expectation was that > you'd tell the truth about how it developed. That was very weird Judy. We will never see eye to eye on this. > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > snip[ > > > > > > > > > > Isn't it convenient how this psychobabble excuses > > > > > your behavior? > > > > > > > > You made up the shame spin on me not arguing with people > > > > who thought you were out of line for giving me shit when > > > > I came here. The tribe spoke and you got voted off. > > > > Deal with it. > > > > > > We could go back and look at that, Curtis, if you like. > > > > > > What actually happened > > > > You are expressing your POV which differs from mine. It > > is very revealing that you would think of it as what > > "actually" happened. > > Unbelievable. It's exactly what happened. Anybody can > go back and verify it for themselves. > > > was that I was trying to *avoid* > > > a hassle with you, told you to lay off, and you went > > > right ahead anyway. > > > > What exactly do you think "laying" off might mean in a > > public board? > > Same thing it means anywhere else. Don't play stupid. > > > You warned me that you couldn't control your vitriol > > towards me and I didn't care if you went off. > > No. I said I *was* controlling it, and that you > might want to think about whether you really > wanted to set me off. > > Obviously, you did want to set me off. You kept > working at it, and eventually you succeeded. > > > And as predicted, you did. The group didn't dig it > > and said so. Then you tried to pin it all on me, > > which failed since everyone could read all the posts > > and decide for themselves. > > Most people don't read the posts carefully enough to > be able to analyze what's going on in an exchange like > this. You knew they hadn't gotten it. You engineered > the whole thing, getting back at me for our alt.m.t > clashes. And that was despite the effort I made when > you first joined us here to be cordial. > > > I've never understood why you took such offense to me > > telling you that I used to get pissed off at you and it > > made me write more back in the ALT Med era. I remember > > that as a key point in the breaking of our initial rapport. > > You bet it was. See post #97718 to refresh your > memory. You turned tail and ran after that. > > > You expected me to bail you out of your own self-created > > mess. > > It was Curtis-created. And my expectation was that > you'd tell the truth about how it developed. > > > You are still trying this routine in blaming me for > > NOT getting involved in your Barry deal as if it is > > a ethical failing to not get involved. > > It's an ethical failing in my book not to defend > someone who's being viciously lied about. But it > wouldn't have come up if you hadn't done your whine > about my quoting you. > > > > > Oh, please, Curtis. Your whole "mommy/daddy" riff > > > was a whine about how you were being victimized by > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > My penchant for analyzing his posts and pointing out > > their shortcomings was what got the feud started way > > back on alt.m.t. At first, we had actual debates on > > substance, but he had such a hard time with those > > that eventually he gave up and resorted to attacking > > me personally instead. Now, that's *all* he does > > where I'm concerned, while I continue to dismantle > > his arguments on substance. > > But from the above paragraphs and given how you feel > about his posts and the manner in which he presents > ideas and argues, why do you even read them? Because others read them and are influenced by them. > I imagine that you are continuing to read and respond to > his posts for other reasons. Do you enjoy the process > itself? Not particularly, no. It's kind of a slog, frankly. > Do you feel compelled to read his posts? Could you just > not read Barry? Somebody needs to get on the record what a malicious phony he is. If somebody else wanted to take over the task of exposing his sophistry, I'd be delighted to retire.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > snip[ > > > > > > > > Isn't it convenient how this psychobabble excuses > > > > your behavior? > > > > > > You made up the shame spin on me not arguing with people > > > who thought you were out of line for giving me shit when > > > I came here. The tribe spoke and you got voted off. > > > Deal with it. > > > > We could go back and look at that, Curtis, if you like. > > > > What actually happened > > You are expressing your POV which differs from mine. It > is very revealing that you would think of it as what > "actually" happened. Unbelievable. It's exactly what happened. Anybody can go back and verify it for themselves. > was that I was trying to *avoid* > > a hassle with you, told you to lay off, and you went > > right ahead anyway. > > What exactly do you think "laying" off might mean in a > public board? Same thing it means anywhere else. Don't play stupid. > You warned me that you couldn't control your vitriol > towards me and I didn't care if you went off. No. I said I *was* controlling it, and that you might want to think about whether you really wanted to set me off. Obviously, you did want to set me off. You kept working at it, and eventually you succeeded. > And as predicted, you did. The group didn't dig it > and said so. Then you tried to pin it all on me, > which failed since everyone could read all the posts > and decide for themselves. Most people don't read the posts carefully enough to be able to analyze what's going on in an exchange like this. You knew they hadn't gotten it. You engineered the whole thing, getting back at me for our alt.m.t clashes. And that was despite the effort I made when you first joined us here to be cordial. > I've never understood why you took such offense to me > telling you that I used to get pissed off at you and it > made me write more back in the ALT Med era. I remember > that as a key point in the breaking of our initial rapport. You bet it was. See post #97718 to refresh your memory. You turned tail and ran after that. > You expected me to bail you out of your own self-created > mess. It was Curtis-created. And my expectation was that you'd tell the truth about how it developed. > You are still trying this routine in blaming me for > NOT getting involved in your Barry deal as if it is > a ethical failing to not get involved. It's an ethical failing in my book not to defend someone who's being viciously lied about. But it wouldn't have come up if you hadn't done your whine about my quoting you. > > Oh, please, Curtis. Your whole "mommy/daddy" riff > > was a whine about how you were being victimized by > > my quoting you in a post to Barry. That you put a > > humorous spin on it doesn't change what you were > > communicating. > > You missed my point. By expressing that it made me > feel icky to have my points used as weapons in your > game I was rejecting the role of victim. Who offered you the role of victim? As I said before, I've *never* seen anybody complain about being "victimized" because somebody quoted them in a post to someone else, unless they were misrepresented, which you were not. If you felt "icky," that was something you offered yourself. > But I am beginning to come around to the idea that my > victim theory my not be completely fair. Perhaps your > responses are how you avoid being a victim just as it > is for me. It never *occurs* to me to consider myself a victim. That's just ludicrous. > So I am reconsidering this charge. But you do portray > yourself the victim of Barry's "bad behavior" frequently > so I am still not sure. As I already said: There's a difference between portraying oneself as a victim and portraying someone else as a (would-be) victimizer. I'm doing the latter. I often use Barry's attacks on me as examples of his attempts to victimize because there's so many of them, but I don't limit myself to those by any means. > > I could dig up plenty of other instances of your > > complaining about how you're being treated. And you > > just got done complaining about Nabby calling you > > an idiot, remember? > > I didn't complain about Nabby's typically mean-spirited > remark. I used it as a counter example to your claim that > you would jump in if people said unfair things to me. That's a ridiculous counter-example, for reasons I already pointed out. > You made the claim to make it seem reasonable that you > should judge me negatively for NOT jumping into your > feud fixation. As if this is everyone's moral duty here. > I object to that expectation and ensuing judgment. You're right, I *do* consider it a moral duty. I do it pretty frequently. I've even defended *Barry* from unfair attacks. I don't typically defend anybody from folks like Nabby and Willytex and Off_World, for reasons that should be obvious. I do do it with people who are generally ta
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > Then there's the constant demonization of those who > > > > don't agree with him. He can't seem to argue *for* > > > > anything without at the same time putting down > > > > anyone who believes differently. > > > > > > Just wanted to add one point: If it weren't for his > > > constant vicious attacks on people and groups (and > > > entire countries) he doesn't like, I'd still probably > > > comment on his posts from time to time, but I'd be a > > > lot easier on him. I don't usually go after lamers > > > unless they make themselves obnoxious. > > > > This from someone who called Curtis an IDIOT just a few > > days ago for disagreeing with her. > > Boy, you really have trouble with context, don't you, > Geeze? Non sequitur city, dude. > > > Who has the time for such nonsense? > > Obviously you do. Or is it that guy who's holding a gun > to your head, forcing you to read my posts and try to > communicate with me by leaving little turds at the end > of them? > > Just like your pal Barry, you're a lamer *and* obnoxious. > Why thank you Judith. You made my point better than I could have ever hoped to!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > Then there's the constant demonization of those who > > > > don't agree with him. He can't seem to argue *for* > > > > anything without at the same time putting down > > > > anyone who believes differently. > > > > > > Just wanted to add one point: If it weren't for his > > > constant vicious attacks on people and groups (and > > > entire countries) he doesn't like, I'd still probably > > > comment on his posts from time to time, but I'd be a > > > lot easier on him. I don't usually go after lamers > > > unless they make themselves obnoxious. > > > > This from someone who called Curtis an IDIOT just a few > > days ago for disagreeing with her. > > Boy, you really have trouble with context, don't you, > Geeze? Non sequitur city, dude. > > > Who has the time for such nonsense? > > Obviously you do. Or is it that guy who's holding a gun > to your head, forcing you to read my posts and try to > communicate with me by leaving little turds at the end > of them? > > Just like your pal Barry, you're a lamer *and* obnoxious. > Why thank you Judith. You made my point better than I could have ever hoped to!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > > Barry, on the other hand, I find highly amusing and often > > insightful. > > See, that's what I was trying to get at. I have > *never* found his posts insightful, since well before > there was a "feud" per se. Sometimes he's mildly > amusing, but most of his attempts at humor are labored > and leaden. > > As I've said frequently, he's a sloppy thinker. His logic > is poor; he bases his theses on unfounded (and often > unspoken) assumptions; he rarely considers alternative > possibilities. He's prone to hyperbole so extreme it > invalidates his points; he uses weasel words to load his > arguments; he uses ambiguity to pivot from one step to > another when there's really no connection. And of course > there's his constant dishonesty, not to mention his > inconsistency from one day (or even one post) to the > next, as well as the same mantra-like themes repeated > over and over again dressed up in different verbal > costumes as if they were brand-new "insights." > > Then there's the constant demonization of those who > don't agree with him. He can't seem to argue *for* > anything without at the same time putting down > anyone who believes differently. > > In most cases, what he appears to do is start from his > conclusion, what he wants to believe (or wants his > readers to believe), and then work backward to put > together a train of thought that seems to lead to that > conclusion--but only if you don't examine it too > closely. > > But he's very skilled with words; he knows how to make > what he's saying *sound* logical and persuasive. You > have to look past the fancy wordsmithing to the > structure and content of his arguments to see how > shallow and generally misbegotten they really are. All > flash and little substance. > > My penchant for analyzing his posts and pointing out > their shortcomings was what got the feud started way > back on alt.m.t. At first, we had actual debates on > substance, but he had such a hard time with those > that eventually he gave up and resorted to attacking > me personally instead. Now, that's *all* he does > where I'm concerned, while I continue to dismantle > his arguments on substance. But from the above paragraphs and given how you feel about his posts and the manner in which he presents ideas and argues, why do you even read them? I know you "continue to dismantle his arguments on substance," but why? To me, it is certainly not as if Barry is changing as a result. If there is anything to learn from all these years of back and forth, I don't think Barry has learned it. Nor does he care to. In fact, this type of interaction usually makes people grasp more strongly at their own style rather than changing. So in my opinion, your posts are making Barry yet more irritating to you. Do you think your posts have had any effect on Barry at all? I imagine that you are continuing to read and respond to his posts for other reasons. Do you enjoy the process itself? Do you feel compelled to read his posts? Could you just not read Barry? > > > He, Rick and Curtis are the "must read" posts when > > I'm looking in on FFL. > > Curtis is always a must-read. I agree, Curtis has lots to say and says it beautifully. He is kind of wise, I would say. Obviously I don't always > agree with him, but there's often more insight in a > single one of his posts than Barry manages in many > months' worth. Rick has a knack for very straightforward, > no-nonsense presentation, complete with supporting facts. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > snip[ > > > > > > Isn't it convenient how this psychobabble excuses > > > your behavior? > > > > You made up the shame spin on me not arguing with people > > who thought you were out of line for giving me shit when > > I came here. The tribe spoke and you got voted off. > > Deal with it. > > We could go back and look at that, Curtis, if you like. > > What actually happened You are expressing your POV which differs from mine. It is very revealing that you would think of it as what "actually" happened. was that I was trying to *avoid* > a hassle with you, told you to lay off, and you went > right ahead anyway. What exactly do you think "laying" off might mean in a public board? You warned me that you couldn't control your vitriol towards me and I didn't care if you went off. And as predicted, you did. The group didn't dig it and said so. Then you tried to pin it all on me, which failed since everyone could read all the posts and decide for themselves. I've never understood why you took such offense to me telling you that I used to get pissed off at you and it made me write more back in the ALT Med era. I remember that as a key point in the breaking of our initial rapport. Folks jumped on me for continuing > to try to provoke you when in fact it was just the > opposite. I wrote nothing provocative. You went off all on your own Judy. As my record of posting since has validated, I didn't come to cause trouble with you. Your little set up "warning" was an attempt to shift the blame for your own choice of being unpleasant to me. You knew that, and you let me take what you > knew was a bad rap. You got the exact rap you deserved. I had no special knowledge any other readers didn't have. The group didn't buy your story and you blamed me. Not for what I "did" but for what I "didn't do" that you somehow felt justified in expecting me to do. You expected me to bail you out of your own self-created mess. You are still trying this routine in blaming me for NOT getting involved in your Barry deal as if it is a ethical failing to not get involved. > > I just went back and reviewed what happened--it was > in early May 2006--to make sure I was describing it > accurately. You might want to do the same. > > No, come to think of it, I'm sure you won't want to. I know what happened, we just don't see it the same way. snip > You are > > playing up your victim hood, it is a constant theme. > > No, Curtis, it's about *ethics*, not victimhood. It is about your fixation that I don't share. Trying to sell it as a noble mission wont get much traction from me. > > > > Of course, we don't ever see Barry (or you) > > > complaining about being victimized. > > > > > > > > > > Because that is not my filter. I don't allow myself to > > be victimized. > > Oh, please, Curtis. Your whole "mommy/daddy" riff > was a whine about how you were being victimized by > my quoting you in a post to Barry. That you put a > humorous spin on it doesn't change what you were > communicating. You missed my point. By expressing that it made me feel icky to have my points used as weapons in your game I was rejecting the role of victim. Having fun writing a humorous reaction was how I dealt with my feelings and it worked. But I am beginning to come around to the idea that my victim theory my not be completely fair. Perhaps your responses are how you avoid being a victim just as it is for me. So I am reconsidering this charge. But you do portray yourself the victim of Barry's "bad behavior" frequently so I am still not sure. > > I could dig up plenty of other instances of your > complaining about how you're being treated. And you > just got done complaining about Nabby calling you > an idiot, remember? I didn't complain about Nabby's typically mean-spirited remark. I used it as a counter example to your claim that you would jump in if people said unfair things to me. You made the claim to make it seem reasonable that you should judge me negatively for NOT jumping into your feud fixation. As if this is everyone's moral duty here. I object to that expectation and ensuing judgment. We all pick our battles. I am not even saying that you should stop the Barry thing, you enjoy it so it is none of my business. But I choose to stay out of it and feel weird if what I write gets used in the battle. By expressing it in humor I feel better without believing it will change your behavior. If anything it will probably make you want to do it more to bother both Barry and me in one stroke. snip > > > > You're quite right, Curtis, you aren't at your best > > > when you're under fire. > > > > I don't enjoy your shame vibe. > > So it's perfectly OK for you to send a shame vibe my > way by suggesting I was making you feel bad by > quoting you in a post to Barry, and by pinning the > "grudge" and "victimhood" labels on
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > Then there's the constant demonization of those who > > > don't agree with him. He can't seem to argue *for* > > > anything without at the same time putting down > > > anyone who believes differently. > > > > Just wanted to add one point: If it weren't for his > > constant vicious attacks on people and groups (and > > entire countries) he doesn't like, I'd still probably > > comment on his posts from time to time, but I'd be a > > lot easier on him. I don't usually go after lamers > > unless they make themselves obnoxious. > > This from someone who called Curtis an IDIOT just a few > days ago for disagreeing with her. Boy, you really have trouble with context, don't you, Geeze? Non sequitur city, dude. > Who has the time for such nonsense? Obviously you do. Or is it that guy who's holding a gun to your head, forcing you to read my posts and try to communicate with me by leaving little turds at the end of them? Just like your pal Barry, you're a lamer *and* obnoxious.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > Then there's the constant demonization of those who > > don't agree with him. He can't seem to argue *for* > > anything without at the same time putting down > > anyone who believes differently. > > Just wanted to add one point: If it weren't for his > constant vicious attacks on people and groups (and > entire countries) he doesn't like, I'd still probably > comment on his posts from time to time, but I'd be a > lot easier on him. I don't usually go after lamers > unless they make themselves obnoxious. > This from someone who called Curtis an IDIOT just a few days ago for disagreeing with her. Who has the time for such nonsense?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > Then there's the constant demonization of those who > don't agree with him. He can't seem to argue *for* > anything without at the same time putting down > anyone who believes differently. Just wanted to add one point: If it weren't for his constant vicious attacks on people and groups (and entire countries) he doesn't like, I'd still probably comment on his posts from time to time, but I'd be a lot easier on him. I don't usually go after lamers unless they make themselves obnoxious.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > Barry, on the other hand, I find highly amusing and often > insightful. See, that's what I was trying to get at. I have *never* found his posts insightful, since well before there was a "feud" per se. Sometimes he's mildly amusing, but most of his attempts at humor are labored and leaden. As I've said frequently, he's a sloppy thinker. His logic is poor; he bases his theses on unfounded (and often unspoken) assumptions; he rarely considers alternative possibilities. He's prone to hyperbole so extreme it invalidates his points; he uses weasel words to load his arguments; he uses ambiguity to pivot from one step to another when there's really no connection. And of course there's his constant dishonesty, not to mention his inconsistency from one day (or even one post) to the next, as well as the same mantra-like themes repeated over and over again dressed up in different verbal costumes as if they were brand-new "insights." Then there's the constant demonization of those who don't agree with him. He can't seem to argue *for* anything without at the same time putting down anyone who believes differently. In most cases, what he appears to do is start from his conclusion, what he wants to believe (or wants his readers to believe), and then work backward to put together a train of thought that seems to lead to that conclusion--but only if you don't examine it too closely. But he's very skilled with words; he knows how to make what he's saying *sound* logical and persuasive. You have to look past the fancy wordsmithing to the structure and content of his arguments to see how shallow and generally misbegotten they really are. All flash and little substance. My penchant for analyzing his posts and pointing out their shortcomings was what got the feud started way back on alt.m.t. At first, we had actual debates on substance, but he had such a hard time with those that eventually he gave up and resorted to attacking me personally instead. Now, that's *all* he does where I'm concerned, while I continue to dismantle his arguments on substance. > He, Rick and Curtis are the "must read" posts when > I'm looking in on FFL. Curtis is always a must-read. Obviously I don't always agree with him, but there's often more insight in a single one of his posts than Barry manages in many months' worth. Rick has a knack for very straightforward, no-nonsense presentation, complete with supporting facts.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > > On Behalf Of wayback71 > > Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 1:51 PM > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married > > with 2 daughters > > > > Sometimes, but I guess about half the time I will look at your response and > > if there is the slightest reference to Barry rather than the topic, I move > > on. Given that, I am sure that I often miss your responses about Barry's > > posts. But that is ok with me. And it is also ok with me not to read > > anything from Barry about you. I am simply not interested in your opinions > > about each other. I enjoy both of your posts on other topics, though. > > My approach too. I read both Barry's and Judy's posts, but if there's any > > reference to the other in either's posts, I delete them unread. > > > > > I don't read Judy's posts on Barry because I have at least some semblance of > compassion. > > It is a given that Judy will totally annihilate Barry's intellect and any > kind of argument he puts forth on whatever topic he is attempting to debate. > She won the battle long, long ago and any post by Barry is one by the > vanquished who is in deep denial about his ability to win even a minor battle > but, nevertheless, keeps trying to attack the victor, like a really bad Monty > Python movie. > > I just can't stomach seeing the poor sap being beaten up again and again and > again... Agreed :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > Wayback, just out of curiosity: I assume you read Barry's > > > posts that aren't about me, right? > > > > Yes, I do read some of Barry's posts that are not about > > you, but not all of his posts. I always go by topic since > > at this point in my life I don't seem to have much free > > time and rarely spend more than 10 min on FFL when I do > > check in. I also read your posts when they are not about > > Barry if the topic interests me. You have incredible > > insight and an eye for detail that I could never match, > > so I find that awesome. > > > > > Do you refrain from reading my commentary on those posts > > > because you class them as part of the "bickering"? > > > > Sometimes, but I guess about half the time I will look at > > your response and if there is the slightest reference to > > Barry rather than the topic, I move on. > > OK. Thanks for the kind words. I'd just wonder whether > you think any of that insight and eye for detail might > be reflected in my responses to Barry's not-about-Judy > posts, even if I happen to use his name. I am sure it is reflected in your replies to Barry's posts, since I have never read a post from you where the insight is missing. But as I said, I do sometimes skip those if the topic is uninteresting to me or if Barry's name comes up.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > > > Having read the first volley of them years ago, I can tell > > > you that I too avoid them like the plague. They leave a > > > bad taste in the mouth, all seem identical, and are a > > > waste of my time - kind of like listening to the endless, > > > repetitive bickering of the coupe in the apartment above > > > yours. > > > > Wayback, just out of curiosity: I assume you read Barry's > > posts that aren't about me, right? > > Yes, I do read some of Barry's posts that are not about you, but not all of > his posts. I always go by topic since at this point in my life I don't seem > to have much free time and rarely spend more than 10 min on FFL when I do > check in. I also read your posts when they are not about Barry if the topic > interests me. You have incredible insight and an eye for detail that I > could never match, so I find that awesome. > > > > Do you refrain from reading my commentary on those posts > > because you class them as part of the "bickering"? > > > > Sometimes, but I guess about half the time I will look at your response and > if there is the slightest reference to Barry rather than the topic, I move > on. Given that, I am sure that I often miss your responses about Barry's > posts. But that is ok with me. And it is also ok with me not to read > anything from Barry about you. I am simply not interested in your opinions > about each other. I enjoy both of your posts on other topics, though. > That sounds about right. In fact, I've checked back on FFL from time to time only to see a pile of posts from Judy with "Barry' in the subtextI just click off and figure there's nothing new going on. Barry rarely uses Judy's name in his posts so once in a while I'll read something and realize it's mid volley in one of their exchanges and I tune out. That said, the last thing she wrote that I can recall being interested in was about food. Most of her posts just strike me as self-inflating huffing and puffing and putting others down. Barry, on the other hand, I find highly amusing and often insightful. He, Rick and Curtis are the "must read" posts when I'm looking in on FFL. When Curtis stopped posting some months ago I stopped reading FFL for months. It's great to have you back Curtis. Your new project is gonna be awesome! Can't wait.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > Wayback, just out of curiosity: I assume you read Barry's > > posts that aren't about me, right? > > Yes, I do read some of Barry's posts that are not about > you, but not all of his posts. I always go by topic since > at this point in my life I don't seem to have much free > time and rarely spend more than 10 min on FFL when I do > check in. I also read your posts when they are not about > Barry if the topic interests me. You have incredible > insight and an eye for detail that I could never match, > so I find that awesome. > > > Do you refrain from reading my commentary on those posts > > because you class them as part of the "bickering"? > > Sometimes, but I guess about half the time I will look at > your response and if there is the slightest reference to > Barry rather than the topic, I move on. OK. Thanks for the kind words. I'd just wonder whether you think any of that insight and eye for detail might be reflected in my responses to Barry's not-about-Judy posts, even if I happen to use his name.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of wayback71 > Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 1:51 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married > with 2 daughters > > Sometimes, but I guess about half the time I will look at your response and > if there is the slightest reference to Barry rather than the topic, I move > on. Given that, I am sure that I often miss your responses about Barry's > posts. But that is ok with me. And it is also ok with me not to read > anything from Barry about you. I am simply not interested in your opinions > about each other. I enjoy both of your posts on other topics, though. > My approach too. I read both Barry's and Judy's posts, but if there's any > reference to the other in either's posts, I delete them unread. > I don't read Judy's posts on Barry because I have at least some semblance of compassion. It is a given that Judy will totally annihilate Barry's intellect and any kind of argument he puts forth on whatever topic he is attempting to debate. She won the battle long, long ago and any post by Barry is one by the vanquished who is in deep denial about his ability to win even a minor battle but, nevertheless, keeps trying to attack the victor, like a really bad Monty Python movie. I just can't stomach seeing the poor sap being beaten up again and again and again...
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wayback71 Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 1:51 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters Sometimes, but I guess about half the time I will look at your response and if there is the slightest reference to Barry rather than the topic, I move on. Given that, I am sure that I often miss your responses about Barry's posts. But that is ok with me. And it is also ok with me not to read anything from Barry about you. I am simply not interested in your opinions about each other. I enjoy both of your posts on other topics, though. My approach too. I read both Barry's and Judy's posts, but if there's any reference to the other in either's posts, I delete them unread.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > > > Having read the first volley of them years ago, I can tell > > you that I too avoid them like the plague. They leave a > > bad taste in the mouth, all seem identical, and are a > > waste of my time - kind of like listening to the endless, > > repetitive bickering of the coupe in the apartment above > > yours. > > Wayback, just out of curiosity: I assume you read Barry's > posts that aren't about me, right? Yes, I do read some of Barry's posts that are not about you, but not all of his posts. I always go by topic since at this point in my life I don't seem to have much free time and rarely spend more than 10 min on FFL when I do check in. I also read your posts when they are not about Barry if the topic interests me. You have incredible insight and an eye for detail that I could never match, so I find that awesome. > Do you refrain from reading my commentary on those posts > because you class them as part of the "bickering"? > Sometimes, but I guess about half the time I will look at your response and if there is the slightest reference to Barry rather than the topic, I move on. Given that, I am sure that I often miss your responses about Barry's posts. But that is ok with me. And it is also ok with me not to read anything from Barry about you. I am simply not interested in your opinions about each other. I enjoy both of your posts on other topics, though.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > snip[ > > > > > > Isn't it convenient how this psychobabble excuses > > > your behavior? > > > > You made up the shame spin on me not arguing with people > > who thought you were out of line for giving me shit when > > I came here. The tribe spoke and you got voted off. > > Deal with it. > > We could go back and look at that, Curtis, if you like. > > What actually happened was that I was trying to *avoid* > a hassle with you, told you to lay off, and you went > right ahead anyway. Folks jumped on me for continuing > to try to provoke you when in fact it was just the > opposite. You knew that, and you let me take what you > knew was a bad rap. > > I just went back and reviewed what happened--it was > in early May 2006--to make sure I was describing it > accurately. You might want to do the same. > > No, come to think of it, I'm sure you won't want to. > > > > And "victimhood" is yet another weasel term (also > > > one Barry uses, quelle surprise). > > > > Naming things with labels doesn't make them less useful > > as descriptive terms for describing behavior. > > Inappropriate labels are very useful for those who > use them to promote their agenda, yes indeed. > > If you use the labels "grudge" and "victimhood" to > describe someone's response to your bad behavior, > that shifts the blame onto them. Very neat. > > You are > > playing up your victim hood, it is a constant theme. > > No, Curtis, it's about *ethics*, not victimhood. > > > > Of course, we don't ever see Barry (or you) > > > complaining about being victimized. > > > > > > > > > > Because that is not my filter. I don't allow myself to > > be victimized. > > Oh, please, Curtis. Your whole "mommy/daddy" riff > was a whine about how you were being victimized by > my quoting you in a post to Barry. That you put a > humorous spin on it doesn't change what you were > communicating. > > I could dig up plenty of other instances of your > complaining about how you're being treated. And you > just got done complaining about Nabby calling you > an idiot, remember? > > Barry whines constantly about how I'm "stalking" > him and how others beat up on him, attributing this > to his being a TM critic (as opposed to the real > reason, which is that he's a crappy person all > round). He just left a long post to that effect this > morning, for pete's sake. > > > > You're quite right, Curtis, you aren't at your best > > > when you're under fire. > > > > I don't enjoy your shame vibe. > > So it's perfectly OK for you to send a shame vibe my > way by suggesting I was making you feel bad by > quoting you in a post to Barry, and by pinning the > "grudge" and "victimhood" labels on me, but it's not > OK for me to point out what you're doing, right? > > > But as far as a putdown, that was lame. > > Just referring to what you yourself said earlier: > > "I'm just glad you are both cool enough to communicate > with me without the scud missiles going off, since I > don't do my best work under that kind of fire." > > With or > > without horselaughs you are portraying yourself as a > > victim and I'm not buying it. It has become part of > > your identity now and challenging it meets with > > survival level push-back. > > There's a difference, Curtis, between feeling that > one is a victim and portraying someone else as a > (would-be) victimizer. "Victimhood" is most definitely > *not* part of my identity; I have way too much self- > esteem for that. You're damn right I'm going to push > back at the accusation and point out that it's > designed to relieve you of any responsibility for your > behavior. > Ahh yes, the patented Judy debate autopsy. (yawn)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > Having read the first volley of them years ago, I can tell > you that I too avoid them like the plague. They leave a > bad taste in the mouth, all seem identical, and are a > waste of my time - kind of like listening to the endless, > repetitive bickering of the coupe in the apartment above > yours. Wayback, just out of curiosity: I assume you read Barry's posts that aren't about me, right? Do you refrain from reading my commentary on those posts because you class them as part of the "bickering"?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" wrote: > Judy, I have read all the recent posts between you and > Curtis. I think Curtis was genuinely trying to tell > you that he enjoys your posts, enjoys Barry's posts, > and no longer reads the posts between the 2 of you. He > was "being nice" and also genuinely meant what he said. > So why did you turn on him in this way? Don't know how you managed to miss what set this off if you've read all the recent posts. It was Curtis complaining about my having quoted him in a post to Barry--not that I'd misrepresented what he had said, but that he felt bad that I had referred to him at all. That seemed to me like a very strange complaint; I've never seen anyone else here make it about someone quoting their posts. You may also have missed that I told Curtis I don't take it as much of a compliment that he enjoys my posts when he says he also enjoys Barry's posts, given my obviously very low opinion of the quality of Barry's posts (not just those demonizing me, but in general). > If Curtis's remark about not enjoying or any longer > reading the posts between you and Barry was the cause No, that wasn't the cause. He's said that many times before. My point was that if he doesn't read them, he shouldn't be commenting on them at all, much less judging them. > let me clue you in: I would bet that NO ONE reads them. I'm not sure that's true, but it's fine with me if it is. > Having read the first volley of them years ago, I can > tell you that I too avoid them like the plague. They > leave a bad taste in the mouth, all seem identical, > and are a waste of my time - kind of like listening to > the endless, repetitive bickering of the coupe in the > apartment above yours. I can understand why you'd feel that way. On the other hand, I'd suggest that anyone who was reasonably objective and had the intestinal fortitude to follow them with attention would not be likely to set up a moral/ethical equivalence between Barry and me. Same with the couple upstairs. That two people engage in bickering does not automatically mean each is equally at fault in the dispute. Again, it's fine with me if you don't read what Barry and I say about each other. It's not fine with me if you judge the posts without reading them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > snip[ > > > > Isn't it convenient how this psychobabble excuses > > your behavior? > > You made up the shame spin on me not arguing with people > who thought you were out of line for giving me shit when > I came here. The tribe spoke and you got voted off. > Deal with it. We could go back and look at that, Curtis, if you like. What actually happened was that I was trying to *avoid* a hassle with you, told you to lay off, and you went right ahead anyway. Folks jumped on me for continuing to try to provoke you when in fact it was just the opposite. You knew that, and you let me take what you knew was a bad rap. I just went back and reviewed what happened--it was in early May 2006--to make sure I was describing it accurately. You might want to do the same. No, come to think of it, I'm sure you won't want to. > > And "victimhood" is yet another weasel term (also > > one Barry uses, quelle surprise). > > Naming things with labels doesn't make them less useful > as descriptive terms for describing behavior. Inappropriate labels are very useful for those who use them to promote their agenda, yes indeed. If you use the labels "grudge" and "victimhood" to describe someone's response to your bad behavior, that shifts the blame onto them. Very neat. You are > playing up your victim hood, it is a constant theme. No, Curtis, it's about *ethics*, not victimhood. > > Of course, we don't ever see Barry (or you) > > complaining about being victimized. > > > > > > Because that is not my filter. I don't allow myself to > be victimized. Oh, please, Curtis. Your whole "mommy/daddy" riff was a whine about how you were being victimized by my quoting you in a post to Barry. That you put a humorous spin on it doesn't change what you were communicating. I could dig up plenty of other instances of your complaining about how you're being treated. And you just got done complaining about Nabby calling you an idiot, remember? Barry whines constantly about how I'm "stalking" him and how others beat up on him, attributing this to his being a TM critic (as opposed to the real reason, which is that he's a crappy person all round). He just left a long post to that effect this morning, for pete's sake. > > You're quite right, Curtis, you aren't at your best > > when you're under fire. > > I don't enjoy your shame vibe. So it's perfectly OK for you to send a shame vibe my way by suggesting I was making you feel bad by quoting you in a post to Barry, and by pinning the "grudge" and "victimhood" labels on me, but it's not OK for me to point out what you're doing, right? > But as far as a putdown, that was lame. Just referring to what you yourself said earlier: "I'm just glad you are both cool enough to communicate with me without the scud missiles going off, since I don't do my best work under that kind of fire." With or > without horselaughs you are portraying yourself as a > victim and I'm not buying it. It has become part of > your identity now and challenging it meets with > survival level push-back. There's a difference, Curtis, between feeling that one is a victim and portraying someone else as a (would-be) victimizer. "Victimhood" is most definitely *not* part of my identity; I have way too much self- esteem for that. You're damn right I'm going to push back at the accusation and point out that it's designed to relieve you of any responsibility for your behavior.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
> > > > Curtis, as you well know, this goes way back > > > > with you and me, to shortly after you joined > > > > us here. > > > > > > > That's quite a long term grudge you are nursing > > > there Judy. > > > > > "Grudge" is a weasel word in this context. Barry > > likes to use it too. But of course it doesn't apply > > when the offense is a continuing one. > > Curtis: > I read a fascinating book about how grudges are > maintained in the Mideast from generation to > generation... > It just amazing how you guys can post weasel your way out of a fair debate. It's been my experience with Judy that she very seldom holds a grudge. I've been a respondent on TM groups for over ten years, and from my experience, Judy almost always addresses the issues at hand - I've never known her to hold a grudge, and she's no great admirer of mine, that's fer sure. In fact, she once posted that she goes out of her way to address each thread as a distinct instance of opinion. The problem is, that almost every single post by Curtis, Hugo, Vaj, Sal, or Turq contains a new big fib. Curtis just confirmed this by insinuating that Judy holds a grudge over generations! Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Snip > > > > > > It is neither yours nor Barry's best work here IMO. > > > > > > Says Curtis, judging the quality of our work. > > > > Yup, imagine that. > > > > > And as noted, you judge the exchanges on a lot of > > > other things you couldn't possibly evaluate if you > > > hadn't been following them. > > > > Obviously I followed it enough to form the opinion. > > We disagree. > > > I haven't slavishly followed every detail, I don't need to. > > Your deal with each other is nothing if not predictable. > > > > snip > > > > > I would not have a malicious liar for a friend, and I > > > don't have much respect for anyone who would. > > > > Right, I got that, but you sure hide it well. The friend > > of my enemy is my enemy, works great in the Mid East too. > > Beg your pardon? Which malicious liars do you see me > being friendly with here? > > > Snip > > > > > Curtis, as you well know, this goes way back with you > > > and me, to shortly after you joined us here. > > > > That's quite a long term grudge you are nursing there Judy. > > "Grudge" is a weasel word in this context. Barry > likes to use it too. But of course it doesn't apply > when the offense is a continuing one. > Judy, I have read all the recent posts between you and Curtis. I think Curtis was genuinely trying to tell you that he enjoys your posts, enjoys Barry's posts, and no longer reads the posts between the 2 of you. He was "being nice" and also genuinely meant what he said. So why did you turn on him in this way? If Curtis's remark about not enjoying or any longer reading the posts between you and Barry was the cause, let me clue you in: I would bet that NO ONE reads them. Having read the first volley of them years ago, I can tell you that I too avoid them like the plague. They leave a bad taste in the mouth, all seem identical, and are a waste of my time - kind of like listening to the endless, repetitive bickering of the coupe in the apartment above yours.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > Curtis, as you well know, this goes way back with you > > > > and me, to shortly after you joined us here. > > > > > > That's quite a long term grudge you are nursing there Judy. > > > > "Grudge" is a weasel word in this context. Barry > > likes to use it too. But of course it doesn't apply > > when the offense is a continuing one. > > I read a fascinating book about how grudges are maintained in the Mideast > from generation to generation. The perception of ongoing offense is critical > for maintaining the emotional intensity and for maintaining victim status to > maintain a grudge. It becomes entwined with cultural and personal identity > so that great lengths are taken to find "evidence". Even to the point of > trying to connect things that to an outside observer seem like a ridiculous > stretch. For example trying to connect what happened when I first started > posting with my current non interest in your feud. The common thread...your > victim hood. Must serve something important for you. > How sad when one realizes that Barry and Judy are both childless which means that their feud will die with them. But take heart! If they both live to their actuarial life expectancies (about 74 and 78 respectively) we have another approximately 20 years of juvenile bickering to look forward to! > Just leave your co-pay with the office on your way out. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > Snip > > > > > > > > It is neither yours nor Barry's best work here IMO. > > > > > > > > Says Curtis, judging the quality of our work. > > > > > > Yup, imagine that. > > > > > > > And as noted, you judge the exchanges on a lot of > > > > other things you couldn't possibly evaluate if you > > > > hadn't been following them. > > > > > > Obviously I followed it enough to form the opinion. > > > > We disagree. > > > > > I haven't slavishly followed every detail, I don't need to. > > > Your deal with each other is nothing if not predictable. > > > > > > snip > > > > > > > I would not have a malicious liar for a friend, and I > > > > don't have much respect for anyone who would. > > > > > > Right, I got that, but you sure hide it well. The friend > > > of my enemy is my enemy, works great in the Mid East too. > > > > Beg your pardon? Which malicious liars do you see me > > being friendly with here? > > > > > Snip > > > > > > > Curtis, as you well know, this goes way back with you > > > > and me, to shortly after you joined us here. > > > > > > That's quite a long term grudge you are nursing there Judy. > > > > "Grudge" is a weasel word in this context. Barry > > likes to use it too. But of course it doesn't apply > > when the offense is a continuing one. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > Doing any recording? I just submitted a grant to re-record Dr. Ross's one man band material. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2BDVjoq1nw I've been playing his stuff for the last year and I'm ready to bring it all back in a "Return of the Doctor" CD. The day when we can hang out is going to be a life changing day for me and my music brother. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Snip > > > > > > It is neither yours nor Barry's best work here IMO. > > > > > > Says Curtis, judging the quality of our work. > > > > Yup, imagine that. > > > > > > > > And as noted, you judge the exchanges on a lot of > > > other things you couldn't possibly evaluate if you > > > hadn't been following them. > > > > Obviously I followed it enough to form the opinion. I haven't slavishly > > followed every detail, I don't need to. Your deal with each other is > > nothing if not predictable. > > > > snip > > > > > > > I would not have a malicious liar for a friend, and I > > > don't have much respect for anyone who would. > > > > Right, I got that, but you sure hide it well. The friend of my enemy is my > > enemy, works great in the Mid East too. > > > > Snip > > > > > Curtis, as you well know, this goes way back with you > > > and me, to shortly after you joined us here. > > > > That's quite a long term grudge you are nursing there Judy. Not a big > > respect builder for me, so I guess we have reached some symmetry here. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, you are not in a position to comment if you > > > > > > > haven't been reading our exchanges attentively. > > > > > > > Your thoughts on the nature of those exchanges do not > > > > > > > carry any weight with me. > > > > > > > > > > > > I was so hoping you were hanging on my every word. But > > > > > > there is zero chance that I will begin reading your > > > > > > exchanges "attentively." Seriously Judy why would I > > > > > > want to do that? Your angle is only fascinating to you. > > > > > > You shouldn't judge the rest of us harshly for not > > > > > > giving a shit. > > > > > > > > > > Obviously, that isn't what I'm saying. It's fine if you > > > > > don't read them, but if you don't, you shouldn't be > > > > > judging them. Like I said, simple. > > > > > > > > I judge them boring. > > > > > > You do a lot more than that. > > > > > > > I don't need to read them all to know that. > > > > > > An episode of a long-running TV series can be boring > > > when you just tune into an episode now and then, > > > because there's no continuity or context, and you > > > can't connect with what's going on. > > > > > > > It is neither yours nor Barry's best work here IMO. > > > > > > Says Curtis, judging the quality of our work. > > > > > > And as noted, you judge the exchanges on a lot of > > > other things you couldn't possibly evaluate if you > > > hadn't been following them. > > > > > > > > > "Acknowledging more fault" sound like a real party. > > > > > > I'm gunna take a pass on this little game. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, well, that's part of what I was saying about our > > > > > respective ethical principles. That and thinking it's > > > > > cute when your buddy tells malicious lies, > > > > > > > > WTF? I never said anything like this. I said I put them > > > > in the folder titled "fucking with Judy" and don't take > > > > them seriously the way you do. > > > > > > Close enough. And it isn't just me Barry tells malicious > > > lies about. It's his M.O. *He* means them to be taken > > > seriously, no matter what he claims here or what he may > > > tell you on the side. > > > > > > Again, the exchange about the Haiti Global Good News > > > site is paradigmatic: Barry gets caught in a malicious > > > lie (not about me), and in trying to wiggle out of it > > > tells more lies (including about me). The whole thing > > > is dead serious. > > > > > > I would not have a malicious liar for a friend, and I > > > don't have much respect for anyone who would. > > > > > > > and not > > > > > being willing to stand up for people who have been > > > > > wrongly accused, among other things. > > > > > > > > Judy I have stood up for you plenty of times here > > > > > > Curtis, as you well know, this goes way back with you > > > and me, to shortly after you joined us here. > > > > > > > arguing for the value I find in our exchanges. > > > > > > Not the same thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Often to people who I consider
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > snip[ > > Isn't it convenient how this psychobabble excuses > your behavior? You made up the shame spin on me not arguing with people who thought you were out of line for giving me shit when I came here. The tribe spoke and you got voted off. Deal with it. > > And "victimhood" is yet another weasel term (also > one Barry uses, quelle surprise). Naming things with labels doesn't make them less useful as descriptive terms for describing behavior. You are playing up your victim hood, it is a constant theme. > > Of course, we don't ever see Barry (or you) > complaining about being victimized. > > Because that is not my filter. I don't allow myself to be victimized. > > You're quite right, Curtis, you aren't at your best > when you're under fire. I don't enjoy your shame vibe. But as far as a putdown, that was lame. With or without horselaughs you are portraying yourself as a victim and I'm not buying it. It has become part of your identity now and challenging it meets with survival level push-back. Hey you deal with me as you wish. I like that you answer in detail Judy. You are an odd duck, but at least you write a lot. And when it is off the personal topics you write well. I'm a fan of this place and you are a big part of it. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > > Curtis my man, you have the patience of a saint in your > > attempt to explain to Judy why the Judy/Barry thing is > > of interest to basically no one except Judy and > > (sometimes) Barry. > > Um...it isn't anything he needs to explain to me, > actually. Nor do I blame him or anyone else for its > not being of interest (as you'd know if you had been > paying attention). > > > The Judy/Barry thing is the main reason I bailed on > > reading FFL for months on end. > > Ooopsie, you're having some memory problems there. Just > a few days ago, you said it was because you felt dirty > about being forced to try to communicate with me by > delivering one-liner insults. > > Or do you mean the same person was holding a gun to your > head and forcing you to read my exchanges with Barry too? > > What a *lamer*. > Uh-huh. So it's all about you, right? How pathetic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > Curtis my man, you have the patience of a saint in your > attempt to explain to Judy why the Judy/Barry thing is > of interest to basically no one except Judy and > (sometimes) Barry. Um...it isn't anything he needs to explain to me, actually. Nor do I blame him or anyone else for its not being of interest (as you'd know if you had been paying attention). > The Judy/Barry thing is the main reason I bailed on > reading FFL for months on end. Ooopsie, you're having some memory problems there. Just a few days ago, you said it was because you felt dirty about being forced to try to communicate with me by delivering one-liner insults. Or do you mean the same person was holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read my exchanges with Barry too? What a *lamer*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > Curtis, as you well know, this goes way back with you > > > > and me, to shortly after you joined us here. > > > > > > That's quite a long term grudge you are nursing there Judy. > > > > "Grudge" is a weasel word in this context. Barry > > likes to use it too. But of course it doesn't apply > > when the offense is a continuing one. > > I read a fascinating book about how grudges are maintained > in the Mideast from generation to generation. The > perception of ongoing offense is critical for maintaining > the emotional intensity and for maintaining victim status > to maintain a grudge. It becomes entwined with cultural > and personal identity so that great lengths are taken to > find "evidence". Even to the point of trying to connect > things that to an outside observer seem like a ridiculous > stretch. For example trying to connect what happened when > I first started posting with my current non interest in > your feud. The common thread...your victim hood. Must > serve something important for you. Isn't it convenient how this psychobabble excuses your behavior? And "victimhood" is yet another weasel term (also one Barry uses, quelle surprise). Of course, we don't ever see Barry (or you) complaining about being victimized. You're quite right, Curtis, you aren't at your best when you're under fire.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Snip > > > > It is neither yours nor Barry's best work here IMO. > > > > Says Curtis, judging the quality of our work. > > Yup, imagine that. > > > > > And as noted, you judge the exchanges on a lot of > > other things you couldn't possibly evaluate if you > > hadn't been following them. > > Obviously I followed it enough to form the opinion. I haven't slavishly > followed every detail, I don't need to. Your deal with each other is nothing > if not predictable. > > snip > > > > I would not have a malicious liar for a friend, and I > > don't have much respect for anyone who would. > > Right, I got that, but you sure hide it well. The friend of my enemy is my > enemy, works great in the Mid East too. > > Snip > > > Curtis, as you well know, this goes way back with you > > and me, to shortly after you joined us here. > > That's quite a long term grudge you are nursing there Judy. Not a big > respect builder for me, so I guess we have reached some symmetry here. > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Again, you are not in a position to comment if you > > > > > > haven't been reading our exchanges attentively. > > > > > > Your thoughts on the nature of those exchanges do not > > > > > > carry any weight with me. > > > > > > > > > > I was so hoping you were hanging on my every word. But > > > > > there is zero chance that I will begin reading your > > > > > exchanges "attentively." Seriously Judy why would I > > > > > want to do that? Your angle is only fascinating to you. > > > > > You shouldn't judge the rest of us harshly for not > > > > > giving a shit. > > > > > > > > Obviously, that isn't what I'm saying. It's fine if you > > > > don't read them, but if you don't, you shouldn't be > > > > judging them. Like I said, simple. > > > > > > I judge them boring. > > > > You do a lot more than that. > > > > > I don't need to read them all to know that. > > > > An episode of a long-running TV series can be boring > > when you just tune into an episode now and then, > > because there's no continuity or context, and you > > can't connect with what's going on. > > > > > It is neither yours nor Barry's best work here IMO. > > > > Says Curtis, judging the quality of our work. > > > > And as noted, you judge the exchanges on a lot of > > other things you couldn't possibly evaluate if you > > hadn't been following them. > > > > > > > "Acknowledging more fault" sound like a real party. > > > > > I'm gunna take a pass on this little game. > > > > > > > > Yeah, well, that's part of what I was saying about our > > > > respective ethical principles. That and thinking it's > > > > cute when your buddy tells malicious lies, > > > > > > WTF? I never said anything like this. I said I put them > > > in the folder titled "fucking with Judy" and don't take > > > them seriously the way you do. > > > > Close enough. And it isn't just me Barry tells malicious > > lies about. It's his M.O. *He* means them to be taken > > seriously, no matter what he claims here or what he may > > tell you on the side. > > > > Again, the exchange about the Haiti Global Good News > > site is paradigmatic: Barry gets caught in a malicious > > lie (not about me), and in trying to wiggle out of it > > tells more lies (including about me). The whole thing > > is dead serious. > > > > I would not have a malicious liar for a friend, and I > > don't have much respect for anyone who would. > > > > > and not > > > > being willing to stand up for people who have been > > > > wrongly accused, among other things. > > > > > > Judy I have stood up for you plenty of times here > > > > Curtis, as you well know, this goes way back with you > > and me, to shortly after you joined us here. > > > > > arguing for the value I find in our exchanges. > > > > Not the same thing. > > > > > > > > > > > Often to people who I consider friends here like Geezer. I just don't > > > care about your Barry deal. I believe you over value these exchanges as > > > important. But they are for you so go for it. But judging me for not > > > caring is a bit self centered at the least. I choose my own online > > > relationship with each person here on my own terms and with my own > > > valuation. I do my best to ignore how people here interact when > > > considering the value of my own communication here. I try to avoid > > > taking on any filters people offer me about people here. Sometimes I am > > > successful. > > > Curtis my man, you have the patience of a saint in your attempt to explain t
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > Curtis, as you well know, this goes way back with you > > > and me, to shortly after you joined us here. > > > > That's quite a long term grudge you are nursing there Judy. > > "Grudge" is a weasel word in this context. Barry > likes to use it too. But of course it doesn't apply > when the offense is a continuing one. I read a fascinating book about how grudges are maintained in the Mideast from generation to generation. The perception of ongoing offense is critical for maintaining the emotional intensity and for maintaining victim status to maintain a grudge. It becomes entwined with cultural and personal identity so that great lengths are taken to find "evidence". Even to the point of trying to connect things that to an outside observer seem like a ridiculous stretch. For example trying to connect what happened when I first started posting with my current non interest in your feud. The common thread...your victim hood. Must serve something important for you. Just leave your co-pay with the office on your way out. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Snip > > > > > > It is neither yours nor Barry's best work here IMO. > > > > > > Says Curtis, judging the quality of our work. > > > > Yup, imagine that. > > > > > And as noted, you judge the exchanges on a lot of > > > other things you couldn't possibly evaluate if you > > > hadn't been following them. > > > > Obviously I followed it enough to form the opinion. > > We disagree. > > > I haven't slavishly followed every detail, I don't need to. > > Your deal with each other is nothing if not predictable. > > > > snip > > > > > I would not have a malicious liar for a friend, and I > > > don't have much respect for anyone who would. > > > > Right, I got that, but you sure hide it well. The friend > > of my enemy is my enemy, works great in the Mid East too. > > Beg your pardon? Which malicious liars do you see me > being friendly with here? > > > Snip > > > > > Curtis, as you well know, this goes way back with you > > > and me, to shortly after you joined us here. > > > > That's quite a long term grudge you are nursing there Judy. > > "Grudge" is a weasel word in this context. Barry > likes to use it too. But of course it doesn't apply > when the offense is a continuing one. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Snip > > > > It is neither yours nor Barry's best work here IMO. > > > > Says Curtis, judging the quality of our work. > > Yup, imagine that. > > > And as noted, you judge the exchanges on a lot of > > other things you couldn't possibly evaluate if you > > hadn't been following them. > > Obviously I followed it enough to form the opinion. We disagree. > I haven't slavishly followed every detail, I don't need to. > Your deal with each other is nothing if not predictable. > > snip > > > I would not have a malicious liar for a friend, and I > > don't have much respect for anyone who would. > > Right, I got that, but you sure hide it well. The friend > of my enemy is my enemy, works great in the Mid East too. Beg your pardon? Which malicious liars do you see me being friendly with here? > Snip > > > Curtis, as you well know, this goes way back with you > > and me, to shortly after you joined us here. > > That's quite a long term grudge you are nursing there Judy. "Grudge" is a weasel word in this context. Barry likes to use it too. But of course it doesn't apply when the offense is a continuing one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: Snip > > It is neither yours nor Barry's best work here IMO. > > Says Curtis, judging the quality of our work. Yup, imagine that. > > And as noted, you judge the exchanges on a lot of > other things you couldn't possibly evaluate if you > hadn't been following them. Obviously I followed it enough to form the opinion. I haven't slavishly followed every detail, I don't need to. Your deal with each other is nothing if not predictable. snip > I would not have a malicious liar for a friend, and I > don't have much respect for anyone who would. Right, I got that, but you sure hide it well. The friend of my enemy is my enemy, works great in the Mid East too. Snip > Curtis, as you well know, this goes way back with you > and me, to shortly after you joined us here. That's quite a long term grudge you are nursing there Judy. Not a big respect builder for me, so I guess we have reached some symmetry here. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > Again, you are not in a position to comment if you > > > > > haven't been reading our exchanges attentively. > > > > > Your thoughts on the nature of those exchanges do not > > > > > carry any weight with me. > > > > > > > > I was so hoping you were hanging on my every word. But > > > > there is zero chance that I will begin reading your > > > > exchanges "attentively." Seriously Judy why would I > > > > want to do that? Your angle is only fascinating to you. > > > > You shouldn't judge the rest of us harshly for not > > > > giving a shit. > > > > > > Obviously, that isn't what I'm saying. It's fine if you > > > don't read them, but if you don't, you shouldn't be > > > judging them. Like I said, simple. > > > > I judge them boring. > > You do a lot more than that. > > > I don't need to read them all to know that. > > An episode of a long-running TV series can be boring > when you just tune into an episode now and then, > because there's no continuity or context, and you > can't connect with what's going on. > > > It is neither yours nor Barry's best work here IMO. > > Says Curtis, judging the quality of our work. > > And as noted, you judge the exchanges on a lot of > other things you couldn't possibly evaluate if you > hadn't been following them. > > > > > "Acknowledging more fault" sound like a real party. > > > > I'm gunna take a pass on this little game. > > > > > > Yeah, well, that's part of what I was saying about our > > > respective ethical principles. That and thinking it's > > > cute when your buddy tells malicious lies, > > > > WTF? I never said anything like this. I said I put them > > in the folder titled "fucking with Judy" and don't take > > them seriously the way you do. > > Close enough. And it isn't just me Barry tells malicious > lies about. It's his M.O. *He* means them to be taken > seriously, no matter what he claims here or what he may > tell you on the side. > > Again, the exchange about the Haiti Global Good News > site is paradigmatic: Barry gets caught in a malicious > lie (not about me), and in trying to wiggle out of it > tells more lies (including about me). The whole thing > is dead serious. > > I would not have a malicious liar for a friend, and I > don't have much respect for anyone who would. > > > and not > > > being willing to stand up for people who have been > > > wrongly accused, among other things. > > > > Judy I have stood up for you plenty of times here > > Curtis, as you well know, this goes way back with you > and me, to shortly after you joined us here. > > > arguing for the value I find in our exchanges. > > Not the same thing. > > > > > > Often to people who I consider friends here like Geezer. I just don't care > > about your Barry deal. I believe you over value these exchanges as > > important. But they are for you so go for it. But judging me for not > > caring is a bit self centered at the least. I choose my own online > > relationship with each person here on my own terms and with my own > > valuation. I do my best to ignore how people here interact when > > considering the value of my own communication here. I try to avoid taking > > on any filters people offer me about people here. Sometimes I am > > successful. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > Again, you are not in a position to comment if you > > > > haven't been reading our exchanges attentively. > > > > Your thoughts on the nature of those exchanges do not > > > > carry any weight with me. > > > > > > I was so hoping you were hanging on my every word. But > > > there is zero chance that I will begin reading your > > > exchanges "attentively." Seriously Judy why would I > > > want to do that? Your angle is only fascinating to you. > > > You shouldn't judge the rest of us harshly for not > > > giving a shit. > > > > Obviously, that isn't what I'm saying. It's fine if you > > don't read them, but if you don't, you shouldn't be > > judging them. Like I said, simple. > > I judge them boring. You do a lot more than that. > I don't need to read them all to know that. An episode of a long-running TV series can be boring when you just tune into an episode now and then, because there's no continuity or context, and you can't connect with what's going on. > It is neither yours nor Barry's best work here IMO. Says Curtis, judging the quality of our work. And as noted, you judge the exchanges on a lot of other things you couldn't possibly evaluate if you hadn't been following them. > > > "Acknowledging more fault" sound like a real party. > > > I'm gunna take a pass on this little game. > > > > Yeah, well, that's part of what I was saying about our > > respective ethical principles. That and thinking it's > > cute when your buddy tells malicious lies, > > WTF? I never said anything like this. I said I put them > in the folder titled "fucking with Judy" and don't take > them seriously the way you do. Close enough. And it isn't just me Barry tells malicious lies about. It's his M.O. *He* means them to be taken seriously, no matter what he claims here or what he may tell you on the side. Again, the exchange about the Haiti Global Good News site is paradigmatic: Barry gets caught in a malicious lie (not about me), and in trying to wiggle out of it tells more lies (including about me). The whole thing is dead serious. I would not have a malicious liar for a friend, and I don't have much respect for anyone who would. > and not > > being willing to stand up for people who have been > > wrongly accused, among other things. > > Judy I have stood up for you plenty of times here Curtis, as you well know, this goes way back with you and me, to shortly after you joined us here. > arguing for the value I find in our exchanges. Not the same thing. > Often to people who I consider friends here like Geezer. I just don't care > about your Barry deal. I believe you over value these exchanges as > important. But they are for you so go for it. But judging me for not caring > is a bit self centered at the least. I choose my own online relationship > with each person here on my own terms and with my own valuation. I do my > best to ignore how people here interact when considering the value of my own > communication here. I try to avoid taking on any filters people offer me > about people here. Sometimes I am successful.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Again, you are not in a position to comment if you > > > haven't been reading our exchanges attentively. > > > Your thoughts on the nature of those exchanges do not > > > carry any weight with me. > > > > I was so hoping you were hanging on my every word. But > > there is zero chance that I will begin reading your > > exchanges "attentively." Seriously Judy why would I > > want to do that? Your angle is only fascinating to you. > > You shouldn't judge the rest of us harshly for not > > giving a shit. > > Obviously, that isn't what I'm saying. It's fine if you > don't read them, but if you don't, you shouldn't be > judging them. Like I said, simple. I judge them boring. I don't need to read them all to know that. It is neither yours nor Barry's best work here IMO. > > > "Acknowledging more fault" sound like a real party. > > I'm gunna take a pass on this little game. > > Yeah, well, that's part of what I was saying about our > respective ethical principles. That and thinking it's > cute when your buddy tells malicious lies, WTF? I never said anything like this. I said I put them in the folder titled "fucking with Judy" and don't take them seriously the way you do. and not > being willing to stand up for people who have been > wrongly accused, among other things. Judy I have stood up for you plenty of times here, arguing for the value I find in our exchanges. Often to people who I consider friends here like Geezer. I just don't care about your Barry deal. I believe you over value these exchanges as important. But they are for you so go for it. But judging me for not caring is a bit self centered at the least. I choose my own online relationship with each person here on my own terms and with my own valuation. I do my best to ignore how people here interact when considering the value of my own communication here. I try to avoid taking on any filters people offer me about people here. Sometimes I am successful. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Again, you are not in a position to comment if you > > haven't been reading our exchanges attentively. > > Your thoughts on the nature of those exchanges do not > > carry any weight with me. > > I was so hoping you were hanging on my every word. But > there is zero chance that I will begin reading your > exchanges "attentively." Seriously Judy why would I > want to do that? Your angle is only fascinating to you. > You shouldn't judge the rest of us harshly for not > giving a shit. Obviously, that isn't what I'm saying. It's fine if you don't read them, but if you don't, you shouldn't be judging them. Like I said, simple. > "Acknowledging more fault" sound like a real party. > I'm gunna take a pass on this little game. Yeah, well, that's part of what I was saying about our respective ethical principles. That and thinking it's cute when your buddy tells malicious lies, and not being willing to stand up for people who have been wrongly accused, among other things.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: Snip > > > I evaluate Barry based on how we relate to each other, > > not with you. I find the last sentence a bit revealing > > Judy, our online friendliness framed as one side resorting > > to flattery and the other (me) being susceptible to such a > > tactic. > > I find it difficult to explain otherwise. The context of how I interact with Barry is mostly outside FFL so that shapes my view of him more that whatever goes on here. How he interacts with you has nothing to do with my view of him. > > > > > The issue is the *malice*, Curtis. And I'm hardly > > > Barry's only target. > > > > And and how is your project of changing him > > working out for you? > > Not my project. My project is to expose him as a > phony. Sounds a little malicious. > > > For me two of the most generative writers here > > also have the sharpest tongues. I can live with > > that since I value the writing effort. > > One of the reasons I don't get all excited when you > compliment me, Curtis, is that the value you put on > Barry's writing doesn't speak very highly of your > standards (with regard to content, not use of > language). Ouch. Snip > > And that's basically what I'm telling you, Curtis. > You don't read the posts (except when they happen > to mention your name), so you have zero basis for > commenting on them. I think I'm gunna go with commenting on whatever I care to, at whatever level attention I choose here. > > And BTW, not all my posts to Barry are in response > to posts of his demonizing me. Some are analyses > of posts he makes on other topics that have nothing > to do with me personally. > > There was one just before you showed up, for example, > in which he blatantly lied about what was on the > Global Good News site. If you didn't read my response > or check the site for yourself, you'd have no way of > knowing he lied. And then having been caught in the > lie, he proceeded to lie some more in an attempt to > cover it up. I guess I don't share your limitless fascination with this angle. To each his or her own. > > > > > > Of course I could be wrong because I don't have all > > > > the context from all the posts that you guys > > > > generate. > > > > > > Right. Which is why you should stay the hell out of it. > > > > So I should jump in when Barry is being bad in > > your view and also stay the hell out of it? > > No, one or the other. If you want to comment, read > the posts. If you don't want to read the posts, > don't comment. Simple. Reading all your and Barry's posts and the supporting evidence posts is a project beyond my level of interest. I'll stick with my casual approach. > > > This whole thing started with me saying I wanted to > > stay our of your feud and your responding that you > > would jump in if someone said something untrue about > > me. > > That's not quite how it went, Curtis. > > My response to your complaint was, essentially, to > tell you to take a flying leap. If you say something > in public, you have no basis to whine about its > being quoted or described in whatever context a > poster chooses, as long as they don't misrepresent > you (as I already said). The term "whine" is a misrepresentation of my send up piece in response to your using my name Judy. > > What I went on to say about my jumping in if somebody > said something untrue about you was peripheral; it > was a comment about our respective ethics, not a > response to your complaint. Double ouch. You have better "ethics" huh? Isn't that "special." The only problem is that, just like me, you choose when to jump in based on how seriously you take it. And I don't take your deal with Barry seriously in any way. > > > My point seems valid still and I'm sorry you > > didn't address it. > > I did indeed address it and did again above. > > > Now Barry has included the "It was Tony's idea" > > option in a recent post so perhaps it was the > > intent rather than the content that bothered him. > > Or perhaps he was performing a strategic backpedal > on being reminded that you were entertaining the > possibility that it was Tony's idea. The reason for the idea is much more relevant. I was not using it to protect Manarishi's image so my point has nothing to do with his criticism. > > > > I am seeking rapport here. You guys are not seeking > > rapport with each other. So little differences mean > > less in my exchanges with you and between you two > > they go nuclear. I don't think either of you are in > > a space that would allow such a concession and to be > > fair I don't see that on either side. > > Again, you are not in a position to comment if you > haven't been reading our exchanges attentively. > Your thoughts on the nature of those exchanges do not > carry any weight with me. I was so hoping you were hanging on my every word. But there is zero chance that I will begin reading your exchanges "attentiv
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > snip > > When Willytex demonizes you, you often react pretty > > strongly. How come you take him, of all people, more > > seriously than you do Barry? Because Barry flatters > > you so often? > > I take Richard much less seriously than Barry. My recent > softer response to him is something I plan to maintain. Good, you've learned to take Willytex less seriously. Perhaps there's a next step here. > I evaluate Barry based on how we relate to each other, > not with you. I find the last sentence a bit revealing > Judy, our online friendliness framed as one side resorting > to flattery and the other (me) being susceptible to such a > tactic. I find it difficult to explain otherwise. > > The issue is the *malice*, Curtis. And I'm hardly > > Barry's only target. > > And and how is your project of changing him > working out for you? Not my project. My project is to expose him as a phony. > For me two of the most generative writers here > also have the sharpest tongues. I can live with > that since I value the writing effort. One of the reasons I don't get all excited when you compliment me, Curtis, is that the value you put on Barry's writing doesn't speak very highly of your standards (with regard to content, not use of language). > > As I pointed out in another post recently, he can't > > seem to make a case about much of anything with > > honesty. His lies where TMers are concerned are > > especially malicious. But that never appears to > > bother you. > > You seem to have a more digital filter than I do. > Lie or truth. Much of what I see here is spin and > opinion. Plenty of that too, but I'm talking about genuine, by-the-dictionary lies, saying stuff one knows is not true. > But since I don't have a horse in the enlightenment > race I can't care about some of the distinctions that > you do. But I can understand why they would matter to > you and you seem to have that base pretty much covered > here. Since I frame most of Barry's post to you under > the heading "Fucking with Judy" I don't even try to > sort out the truth. You don't even *read* them, or so you claim. Of course you can't sort out the truth. And that's basically what I'm telling you, Curtis. You don't read the posts (except when they happen to mention your name), so you have zero basis for commenting on them. And BTW, not all my posts to Barry are in response to posts of his demonizing me. Some are analyses of posts he makes on other topics that have nothing to do with me personally. There was one just before you showed up, for example, in which he blatantly lied about what was on the Global Good News site. If you didn't read my response or check the site for yourself, you'd have no way of knowing he lied. And then having been caught in the lie, he proceeded to lie some more in an attempt to cover it up. > > > Of course I could be wrong because I don't have all > > > the context from all the posts that you guys > > > generate. > > > > Right. Which is why you should stay the hell out of it. > > So I should jump in when Barry is being bad in > your view and also stay the hell out of it? No, one or the other. If you want to comment, read the posts. If you don't want to read the posts, don't comment. Simple. > This whole thing started with me saying I wanted to > stay our of your feud and your responding that you > would jump in if someone said something untrue about > me. That's not quite how it went, Curtis. My response to your complaint was, essentially, to tell you to take a flying leap. If you say something in public, you have no basis to whine about its being quoted or described in whatever context a poster chooses, as long as they don't misrepresent you (as I already said). What I went on to say about my jumping in if somebody said something untrue about you was peripheral; it was a comment about our respective ethics, not a response to your complaint. > My point seems valid still and I'm sorry you > didn't address it. I did indeed address it and did again above. > Now Barry has included the "It was Tony's idea" > option in a recent post so perhaps it was the > intent rather than the content that bothered him. Or perhaps he was performing a strategic backpedal on being reminded that you were entertaining the possibility that it was Tony's idea. > I am seeking rapport here. You guys are not seeking > rapport with each other. So little differences mean > less in my exchanges with you and between you two > they go nuclear. I don't think either of you are in > a space that would allow such a concession and to be > fair I don't see that on either side. Again, you are not in a position to comment if you haven't been reading our exchanges attentively. Your thoughts on the nature of those exchanges do not carry any weight with me. > > > This distinction I draw gives us the a
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: snip > When Willytex demonizes you, you often react pretty > strongly. How come you take him, of all people, more > seriously than you do Barry? Because Barry flatters > you so often? I take Richard much less seriously than Barry. My recent softer response to him is something I plan to maintain. I evaluate Barry based on how we relate to each other, not with you. I find the last sentence a bit revealing Judy, our online friendliness framed as one side resorting to flattery and the other (me) being susceptible to such a tactic. Here is another option outside the sour spin zone, we appreciate each other here and communicate that friendliness. This is not exactly emotional intelligence masters degree material. > > The issue is the *malice*, Curtis. And I'm hardly > Barry's only target. And and how is your project of changing him working out for you? Seen some progress in making him communicate in a way you would prefer? For me two of the most generative writers here also have the sharpest tongues. I can live with that since I value the writing effort. And since I have found a comfortable posting relationship with each of you individually, I can enjoy each of you in different ways. And any denial that you don't enjoy each other's caustic style would be met with skepticism. You have created exactly what you want with each other and it is not for me to judge what you guys enjoy here. I'm just glad you are both cool enough to communicate with me without the scud missiles going off, since I don't do my best work under that kind of fire. > > As I pointed out in another post recently, he can't > seem to make a case about much of anything with > honesty. His lies where TMers are concerned are > especially malicious. But that never appears to > bother you. You seem to have a more digital filter than I do. Lie or truth. Much of what I see here is spin and opinion. But since I don't have a horse in the enlightenment race I can't care about some of the distinctions that you do. But I can understand why they would matter to you and you seem to have that base pretty much covered here. Since I frame most of Barry's post to you under the heading "Fucking with Judy" I don't even try to sort out the truth. > > > > As does the notion that I'm trampling on your feelings > > > when I point out to Barry that the scenario he was > > > mocking of Tony having insisted on the secrecy was one > > > you had entertained, given his professed respect for > > > your "real world perspective." > > > > His point as I understand it has to do with the intent > > of the person proposing that the secrecy was Tony's idea. > > For a believer it would be to protect Maharishi, for me > > it would be because there is nothing good on TV. My > > point may have nothing to do with what Barry is goofing > > on. Of course I could be wrong because I don't have all > > the context from all the posts that you guys generate. > > Right. Which is why you should stay the hell out of it. So I should jump in when Barry is being bad in your view and also stay the hell out of it? This whole thing started with me saying I wanted to stay our of your feud and your responding that you would jump in if someone said something untrue about me. My point seems valid still and I'm sorry you didn't address it. Now Barry has included the "It was Tony's idea" option in a recent post so perhaps it was the intent rather than the content that bothered him. > > > The difference between Barry and I in this context is > > that I am giving you more credit for not just following a > > party "protect the Guru" line of thinking and he is not. > > You're giving me that credit because I've been explicit > about it. Barry *also* knows I've been explicit about it, > so there's no basis whatsoever, other than pure malice, > for him not to give me the same credit. I am seeking rapport here. You guys are not seeking rapport with each other. So little differences mean less in my exchanges with you and between you two they go nuclear. I don't think either of you are in a space that would allow such a concession and to be fair I don't see that on either side. > > > This distinction I draw gives us the ability to have > > good discussions here. The lack of this distinction > > creates a lot of back and forth battle posts between > > you guys. To each his or her own. > > That's just ethically vacuous, Curtis. I don't lie > about Barry. It's his lies that create the battle. The solo tango dancer theory...I'm not a fan. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
>
> > So in your mind, Nabby calling you an idiot equates to
> > Barry's reference to "the Judys of the movement" wanting
> > to exonerate MMY of any blame in the Great Marriage
> > Secrecy Scandal. Sorry, but I think that's idiotic.
>
> Yes I do consider them identical in intent. They
> are provocative and their purpose is to insult and
> in your case to wind you up to respond.
Big difference: Nabby was expressing an opinion using
obvious hyperbole ("idiot" is his all-purpose insult);
Barry is flat-out lying about something specific.
> Barry doesn't take the content of posts as seriously as
> you do so he is entertaining himself watching you react.
That's his *excuse*. He proffers it to make his
compulsion to demonize his critics appear virtuous.
But even if it were true, it's not such a great
defense, is it?
> It seems pretty obvious from the outside. At least that
> is my read. I believe you take him too seriously but that
> is your choice.
When Willytex demonizes you, you often react pretty
strongly. How come you take him, of all people, more
seriously than you do Barry? Because Barry flatters
you so often?
The issue is the *malice*, Curtis. And I'm hardly
Barry's only target.
As I pointed out in another post recently, he can't
seem to make a case about much of anything with
honesty. His lies where TMers are concerned are
especially malicious. But that never appears to
bother you.
> > As does the notion that I'm trampling on your feelings
> > when I point out to Barry that the scenario he was
> > mocking of Tony having insisted on the secrecy was one
> > you had entertained, given his professed respect for
> > your "real world perspective."
>
> His point as I understand it has to do with the intent
> of the person proposing that the secrecy was Tony's idea.
> For a believer it would be to protect Maharishi, for me
> it would be because there is nothing good on TV. My
> point may have nothing to do with what Barry is goofing
> on. Of course I could be wrong because I don't have all
> the context from all the posts that you guys generate.
Right. Which is why you should stay the hell out of it.
> The difference between Barry and I in this context is
> that I am giving you more credit for not just following a
> party "protect the Guru" line of thinking and he is not.
You're giving me that credit because I've been explicit
about it. Barry *also* knows I've been explicit about it,
so there's no basis whatsoever, other than pure malice,
for him not to give me the same credit.
> This distinction I draw gives us the ability to have
> good discussions here. The lack of this distinction
> creates a lot of back and forth battle posts between
> you guys. To each his or her own.
That's just ethically vacuous, Curtis. I don't lie
about Barry. It's his lies that create the battle.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" wrote: > > > > > > You're better than that man and you know it. > > > > Curtis: > > But how about that Tony? Sly dog! But it is all > > OK because he stays away from his family so he > > can do his royal work boner and distraction free! > > > So, you're not better than that. That is correct. I am better than absolutely nothing. Sorry to have offended your priggish sensibility. Very impressive, > Curtis! This is a classic, fer sure. I haven't heard > a discussion on this level since I worked in a > bowling alley back in High School. Some people never > change, I guess. Let's proclaim this 'Drivel Day' on > FFL. I thought for a minute I was back on .a.m.t. > > > Hey Man, > > > > Just got back from competing in the International > > Blues Challenge in Memphis. I was voted the solo > > blues artist of the year here in DC so they sent me. > > I'll send you some details on our non Raja oriented > > site. > > > > Judy and I had a good King Tony discussion. I wouldn't > > interact with her if I didn't enjoy it. But the > > gravitational pull to make everything fodder for the > > feud is too strong I am afraid. And I don't want to > > catch any crossfire from the Hatfields and the McCoys, > > I'm just tending my still and enjoying my moonshine > > here! > > > > What strikes me as fascinating is how little the other > > Rajas know about the guy who is so important to their > > lives. It reminds me how little I knew about Maharishi > > when I pledged myself to fulfilling HIS will. "Don't > > follow leaders. Watch the parkin' meters." > > > > I have to believe that this is a blow to the higher up's > > sense that they know what is really going on with this > > guy. That is a pretty high level of mistrust of his > > fellow Rajas. I guess he is going to continue the > > dysfunctional family model of the Maharishi. Very > > funny for us, very sad for them. But the payoff is the > > specialness they feel about themselves. Knowers of Reality > > with no clue about Tony's secret life. The Adhiraj of > > the realm has a secret family. No wonder it brought us > > back to hang here for a while! > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > So in your mind, Nabby calling you an idiot equates to > Barry's reference to "the Judys of the movement" wanting > to exonerate MMY of any blame in the Great Marriage > Secrecy Scandal. Sorry, but I think that's idiotic. Yes I do consider them identical in intent. They are provocative and their purpose is to insult and in your case to wind you up to respond. Barry doesn't take the content of posts as seriously as you do so he is entertaining himself watching you react. It seems pretty obvious from the outside. At least that is my read. I believe you take him too seriously but that is your choice. > > As does the notion that I'm trampling on your feelings > when I point out to Barry that the scenario he was > mocking of Tony having insisted on the secrecy was one > you had entertained, given his professed respect for > your "real world perspective." His point as I understand it has to do with the intent of the person proposing that the secrecy was Tony's idea. For a believer it would be to protect Maharishi, for me it would be because there is nothing good on TV. My point may have nothing to do with what Barry is goofing on. Of course I could be wrong because I don't have all the context from all the posts that you guys generate. The difference between Barry and I in this context is that I am giving you more credit for not just following a party "protect the Guru" line of thinking and he is not. This distinction I draw gives us the ability to have good discussions here. The lack of this distinction creates a lot of back and forth battle posts between you guys. To each his or her own. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Better watch what you say, then, and make sure you > > > > > don't come out with anything that might embarrass > > > > > Daddy. > > > > > > > > Judy, > > > > > > > > Why would I read anything you guys write to each other? > > > > > > Why would you comment on something I wrote to Barry > > > that you hadn't read? > > > > > > Come on, Curtis. Either stay out of it, or take > > > responsibility for getting into it. > > > > I commented on the post that used my name. Of course I > > read those. > > OK, you wouldn't read anything Barry and I write to each > other except the posts that use your name. > > Exactly how does that change my point? > > And don't you have to at least skim a post to see whether > your name is mentioned? Or do you use the Search function > to make sure you haven't missed any such instances? > > > > >, but I can also understand why you did so. I was not > > > > asking you not to express your opinion using me as an > > > > example but was expressing how I feel about it. > > > > > > Rght. "When you do this it hurts me terribly. How > > > can you possibly think I'm asking you to stop?" > > > > I am drawing different intellectual boundaries than some > > who make such requests and am being clear about the lines > > I am drawing. I never assume that how something makes me > > feel is a motive for people I don't have a personal > > relationship with. But I am letting you know so you can > > do with the information as you wish. > > Curtis, where you're drawing your intellectual boundaries > is way too subtle for me, I'm afraid, even after you've > gone to the trouble to explain them. The above makes no > sense to me whatsoever. > > And what "such requests" are you talking about? I can't > recall ever having seen anyone here complain because > somebody quoted and/or referred to them in a post to > somebody else, as long as they weren't misrepresented. > > > In this case your choice was to mock me. > > If you want me to understand why those intellectual > boundaries are actually coherent, you're going to need > to take another crack at spelling them out. > > > > > > But I'll tell you this, dear. If Daddy or anybody > > > > > else said bad things about you that I knew weren't > > > > > true, I'd give them what-for. I wouldn't wait for > > > > > you to use my name. > > > > > > > > While I appreciate the sentiment I am skeptical of its > > > > application since Nabby used the phrase "idiots like > > > > Curtis" with no response from you. > > > > > > Oh, please. Given that comment, *I* say you're an idiot. > > > > Nice touch. > > So in your mind, Nabby calling you an idiot equates to > Barry's reference to "the Judys of the movement" wanting > to exonerate MMY of any blame in the Great Marriage > Secrecy Scandal. Sorry, but I think that's idiotic. > > As does the notion that I'm trampling on your feelings > when I point out to Barry that the scenario he was > mocking of Tony hav
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
> > You're better than that man and you know it. > > Curtis: > But how about that Tony? Sly dog! But it is all > OK because he stays away from his family so he > can do his royal work boner and distraction free! > So, you're not better than that. Very impressive, Curtis! This is a classic, fer sure. I haven't heard a discussion on this level since I worked in a bowling alley back in High School. Some people never change, I guess. Let's proclaim this 'Drivel Day' on FFL. I thought for a minute I was back on .a.m.t. > Hey Man, > > Just got back from competing in the International > Blues Challenge in Memphis. I was voted the solo > blues artist of the year here in DC so they sent me. > I'll send you some details on our non Raja oriented > site. > > Judy and I had a good King Tony discussion. I wouldn't > interact with her if I didn't enjoy it. But the > gravitational pull to make everything fodder for the > feud is too strong I am afraid. And I don't want to > catch any crossfire from the Hatfields and the McCoys, > I'm just tending my still and enjoying my moonshine > here! > > What strikes me as fascinating is how little the other > Rajas know about the guy who is so important to their > lives. It reminds me how little I knew about Maharishi > when I pledged myself to fulfilling HIS will. "Don't > follow leaders. Watch the parkin' meters." > > I have to believe that this is a blow to the higher up's > sense that they know what is really going on with this > guy. That is a pretty high level of mistrust of his > fellow Rajas. I guess he is going to continue the > dysfunctional family model of the Maharishi. Very > funny for us, very sad for them. But the payoff is the > specialness they feel about themselves. Knowers of Reality > with no clue about Tony's secret life. The Adhiraj of > the realm has a secret family. No wonder it brought us > back to hang here for a while! > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > Better watch what you say, then, and make sure you > > > > don't come out with anything that might embarrass > > > > Daddy. > > > > > > Judy, > > > > > > Why would I read anything you guys write to each other? > > > > Why would you comment on something I wrote to Barry > > that you hadn't read? > > > > Come on, Curtis. Either stay out of it, or take > > responsibility for getting into it. > > I commented on the post that used my name. Of course I > read those. OK, you wouldn't read anything Barry and I write to each other except the posts that use your name. Exactly how does that change my point? And don't you have to at least skim a post to see whether your name is mentioned? Or do you use the Search function to make sure you haven't missed any such instances? > >, but I can also understand why you did so. I was not > > > asking you not to express your opinion using me as an > > > example but was expressing how I feel about it. > > > > Rght. "When you do this it hurts me terribly. How > > can you possibly think I'm asking you to stop?" > > I am drawing different intellectual boundaries than some > who make such requests and am being clear about the lines > I am drawing. I never assume that how something makes me > feel is a motive for people I don't have a personal > relationship with. But I am letting you know so you can > do with the information as you wish. Curtis, where you're drawing your intellectual boundaries is way too subtle for me, I'm afraid, even after you've gone to the trouble to explain them. The above makes no sense to me whatsoever. And what "such requests" are you talking about? I can't recall ever having seen anyone here complain because somebody quoted and/or referred to them in a post to somebody else, as long as they weren't misrepresented. > In this case your choice was to mock me. If you want me to understand why those intellectual boundaries are actually coherent, you're going to need to take another crack at spelling them out. > > > > But I'll tell you this, dear. If Daddy or anybody > > > > else said bad things about you that I knew weren't > > > > true, I'd give them what-for. I wouldn't wait for > > > > you to use my name. > > > > > > While I appreciate the sentiment I am skeptical of its > > > application since Nabby used the phrase "idiots like > > > Curtis" with no response from you. > > > > Oh, please. Given that comment, *I* say you're an idiot. > > Nice touch. So in your mind, Nabby calling you an idiot equates to Barry's reference to "the Judys of the movement" wanting to exonerate MMY of any blame in the Great Marriage Secrecy Scandal. Sorry, but I think that's idiotic. As does the notion that I'm trampling on your feelings when I point out to Barry that the scenario he was mocking of Tony having insisted on the secrecy was one you had entertained, given his professed respect for your "real world perspective."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > OK CurtisI love you brother, but how much more proof of this woman's > serious dysfunction do you need? Every time I get involved with trying to > communicate with her I end up feeling dirty and wonder why I wasted time > making the effort. It's reason #1 I gave up reading FFL. Judy clearly was/is > an intelligent woman. But somewhere along the line she became seriously > damaged. I've got (and so do you and frankly so does Barry) better things to > do in life than wallow in her deranged version of pissy, condescending, > reality. > > You're better than that man and you know it. Hey Man, Just got back from competing in the International Blues Challenge in Memphis. I was voted the solo blues artist of the year here in DC so they sent me. I'll send you some details on our non Raja oriented site. Judy and I had a good King Tony discussion. I wouldn't interact with her if I didn't enjoy it. But the gravitational pull to make everything fodder for the feud is too strong I am afraid. And I don't want to catch any crossfire from the Hatfields and the McCoys, I'm just tending my still and enjoying my moonshine here! But how about that Tony? Sly dog! But it is all OK because he stays away from his family so he can do his royal work boner and distraction free! What strikes me as fascinating is how little the other Rajas know about the guy who is so important to their lives. It reminds me how little I knew about Maharishi when I pledged myself to fulfilling HIS will. "Don't follow leaders. Watch the parkin' meters." I have to believe that this is a blow to the higher up's sense that they know what is really going on with this guy. That is a pretty high level of mistrust of his fellow Rajas. I guess he is going to continue the dysfunctional family model of the Maharishi. Very funny for us, very sad for them. But the payoff is the specialness they feel about themselves. Knowers of Reality with no clue about Tony's secret life. The Adhiraj of the realm has a secret family. No wonder it brought us back to hang here for a while! > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > Better watch what you say, then, and make sure you > > > > don't come out with anything that might embarrass > > > > Daddy. > > > > > > Judy, > > > > > > Why would I read anything you guys write to each other? > > > > Why would you comment on something I wrote to Barry > > that you hadn't read? > > > > Come on, Curtis. Either stay out of it, or take > > responsibility for getting into it. > > > > > My little rant was expressing my discomfort with being > > > used as a tool in your battle > > > > How did you know I did so if you aren't reading my > > posts to Barry? > > > > >, but I can also understand why you did so. I was not > > > asking you not to express your opinion using me as an > > > example but was expressing how I feel about it. > > > > Rght. "When you do this it hurts me terribly. How > > can you possibly think I'm asking you to stop?" > > > > > > > > But I'll tell you this, dear. If Daddy or anybody > > > > else said bad things about you that I knew weren't > > > > true, I'd give them what-for. I wouldn't wait for > > > > you to use my name. > > > > > > While I appreciate the sentiment I am skeptical of its > > > application since Nabby used the phrase "idiots like > > > Curtis" with no response from you. > > > > Oh, please. Given that comment, *I* say you're an idiot. > > > OK CurtisI love you brother, but how much more proof of this woman's > serious dysfunction do you need? Every time I get involved with trying to > communicate with her I end up feeling dirty and wonder why I wasted time > making the effort. It's reason #1 I gave up reading FFL. Judy clearly was/is > an intelligent woman. But somewhere along the line she became seriously > damaged. I've got (and so do you and frankly so does Barry) better things to > do in life than wallow in her deranged version of pissy, condescending, > reality. > > You're better than that man and you know it. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > OK CurtisI love you brother, but how much more proof > of this woman's serious dysfunction do you need? Every > time I get involved with trying to communicate with her > I end up feeling dirty and wonder why I wasted time > making the effort. It's reason #1 I gave up reading FFL. > Judy clearly was/is an intelligent woman. But somewhere > along the line she became seriously damaged. I've got > (and so do you and frankly so does Barry) better things > to do in life than wallow in her deranged version of > pissy, condescending, reality. Jeez, pleez, Geez, get a *clue*. You're coming in at the end of this exchange with no idea of the context. Makes you look almost as silly as Barry did when he thought Curtis's "Mommy and Daddy" trope was referring to the Royal Tony Family. BTW, I'm sorry to hear someone was holding a gun to your head and *forcing* you not just to read my posts but to *try to communicate* with me by delivering one-liner insult after one-liner insult. No wonder you felt so dirty you had to give up reading FFL.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > Better watch what you say, then, and make sure you > > > don't come out with anything that might embarrass > > > Daddy. > > > > Judy, > > > > Why would I read anything you guys write to each other? > > Why would you comment on something I wrote to Barry > that you hadn't read? > > Come on, Curtis. Either stay out of it, or take > responsibility for getting into it. I commented on the post that used my name. Of course I read those. > > > My little rant was expressing my discomfort with being > > used as a tool in your battle > > How did you know I did so if you aren't reading my > posts to Barry? Again, when I see my name I read it. > > >, but I can also understand why you did so. I was not > > asking you not to express your opinion using me as an > > example but was expressing how I feel about it. > > Rght. "When you do this it hurts me terribly. How > can you possibly think I'm asking you to stop?" I am drawing different intellectual boundaries than some who make such requests and am being clear about the lines I am drawing. I never assume that how something makes me feel is a motive for people I don't have a personal relationship with. But I am letting you know so you can do with the information as you wish. In this case your choice was to mock me. > > > > > But I'll tell you this, dear. If Daddy or anybody > > > else said bad things about you that I knew weren't > > > true, I'd give them what-for. I wouldn't wait for > > > you to use my name. > > > > While I appreciate the sentiment I am skeptical of its > > application since Nabby used the phrase "idiots like > > Curtis" with no response from you. > > Oh, please. Given that comment, *I* say you're an idiot. Nice touch. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
Curtis: > That is not your best work IMO... > Oh yeah - talk about 'good work'! LoL! This is drivel: > > If mommy keeps using my name when she fights with > > daddy I am going to start cutting myself again with > > the sharpened end of the paper clip. Than I am > > going to wet my bed and not have my period until I > > am 17. Then I am going to spray computer screen > > cleaner onto a rag and inhale it from a paper bag > > till the fighting stops in my head. Then I am going > > to date a man who is 18 years older than I am and > > get preggers. Then I am going to discover meth... > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
Joe: > OK CurtisI love you brother, but > how much more proof of this woman's > serious dysfunction do you need...? > Oh, come on - you guys love Judy. If it wasn't for Judy there would be hardly anything worthwhile to read here! I love to see Judy put you loud-mouths in your place. A word of advice: stop the lying. > I've got (and so do you and frankly so > does Barry) better things to do in life > than wallow in her deranged version of > pissy, condescending, reality. > You three could leave the group anytime and I wouldn't miss you. You haven't posted a single thing that would help me to understand the practice of TM. Face it - you're probably not contacting the Transcendent, you've probably never been practicing TM, at least it doesn't sound like it - you're just posting drivel. > You're better than that man and you > know it. > I'm starting to think you're just a troll for attention. I don't see any of your names on the TMO List of approved TMers. You don't even seem to be aware of some of the basic elements of debating and netiquette. Here, get some smarts: http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > Better watch what you say, then, and make sure you > > > don't come out with anything that might embarrass > > > Daddy. > > > > Judy, > > > > Why would I read anything you guys write to each other? > > Why would you comment on something I wrote to Barry > that you hadn't read? > > Come on, Curtis. Either stay out of it, or take > responsibility for getting into it. > > > My little rant was expressing my discomfort with being > > used as a tool in your battle > > How did you know I did so if you aren't reading my > posts to Barry? > > >, but I can also understand why you did so. I was not > > asking you not to express your opinion using me as an > > example but was expressing how I feel about it. > > Rght. "When you do this it hurts me terribly. How > can you possibly think I'm asking you to stop?" > > > > > But I'll tell you this, dear. If Daddy or anybody > > > else said bad things about you that I knew weren't > > > true, I'd give them what-for. I wouldn't wait for > > > you to use my name. > > > > While I appreciate the sentiment I am skeptical of its > > application since Nabby used the phrase "idiots like > > Curtis" with no response from you. > > Oh, please. Given that comment, *I* say you're an idiot. > OK CurtisI love you brother, but how much more proof of this woman's serious dysfunction do you need? Every time I get involved with trying to communicate with her I end up feeling dirty and wonder why I wasted time making the effort. It's reason #1 I gave up reading FFL. Judy clearly was/is an intelligent woman. But somewhere along the line she became seriously damaged. I've got (and so do you and frankly so does Barry) better things to do in life than wallow in her deranged version of pissy, condescending, reality. You're better than that man and you know it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Better watch what you say, then, and make sure you > > don't come out with anything that might embarrass > > Daddy. > > Judy, > > Why would I read anything you guys write to each other? Why would you comment on something I wrote to Barry that you hadn't read? Come on, Curtis. Either stay out of it, or take responsibility for getting into it. > My little rant was expressing my discomfort with being > used as a tool in your battle How did you know I did so if you aren't reading my posts to Barry? >, but I can also understand why you did so. I was not > asking you not to express your opinion using me as an > example but was expressing how I feel about it. Rght. "When you do this it hurts me terribly. How can you possibly think I'm asking you to stop?" > > But I'll tell you this, dear. If Daddy or anybody > > else said bad things about you that I knew weren't > > true, I'd give them what-for. I wouldn't wait for > > you to use my name. > > While I appreciate the sentiment I am skeptical of its > application since Nabby used the phrase "idiots like > Curtis" with no response from you. Oh, please. Given that comment, *I* say you're an idiot.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Better watch what you say, then, and make sure you > don't come out with anything that might embarrass > Daddy. Judy, Why would I read anything you guys write to each other? Feuds are only interesting for the people in them. I enjoy both of you in different ways. I have zero interest in how you have chosen to communicate with each other. I have my own positive communication with each of you separately. I enjoy and read both of your contributions here, but not to each other. That is not your best work IMO. I already told you that I think you have the Tony thing in good perspective. I have enjoyed your insights and the opportunity to discuss it with someone who tolerates my own irreverence and interest in the topic. You and Barry are two of my favorite resources here. Sorry that you guys don't get along, but perhaps that is why it works for me. You are both intense advocates of your POVs. I get very little from TM robots but I don't view you as one. I think you are thinking deeply and I enjoy the interaction regardless of our sometimes different conclusions. I have much more in common with you two intellectually than with any Raja. But I have plenty of differences too and that is worth exploring, at least for me sometimes. My little rant was expressing my discomfort with being used as a tool in your battle, but I can also understand why you did so. I was not asking you not to express your opinion using me as an example but was expressing how I feel about it. I enjoy you both too much to join in the mean-spirited stuff. I have my own battles. > > But I'll tell you this, dear. If Daddy or anybody > else said bad things about you that I knew weren't > true, I'd give them what-for. I wouldn't wait for > you to use my name. While I appreciate the sentiment I am skeptical of its application since Nabby used the phrase "idiots like Curtis" with no response from you. I may be many negitive things but I am not an idiot! I believe you disregarded it for the same reasons I ignore Barry's ear tweaking of you. You are the best defender of yourself and so am I. My relationship with Barry has nothing to do with my online relationship with you Judy. Let's keep the party rolling. You guys do your thing and I'll do my thing with each of you individually. That is the best way for me to be true to my own perspective of the value I find in our online relationships while not being a shaming dick about how you choose to interact with each other. FFL is a valuable resource. I am just trying to find my way here. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > If mommy keeps using my name when she fights with > > daddy I am going to start cutting myself again with > > the sharpened end of the paper clip. Than I am > > going to wet my bed and not have my period until I > > am 17. Then I am going to spray computer screen > > cleaner onto a rag and inhale it from a paper bag > > till the fighting stops in my head. Then I am going > > to date a man who is 18 years older than I am and > > get preggers. Then I am going to discover meth. > > > > I'm just say'n... >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
Better watch what you say, then, and make sure you don't come out with anything that might embarrass Daddy. But I'll tell you this, dear. If Daddy or anybody else said bad things about you that I knew weren't true, I'd give them what-for. I wouldn't wait for you to use my name. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > If mommy keeps using my name when she fights with > daddy I am going to start cutting myself again with > the sharpened end of the paper clip. Than I am > going to wet my bed and not have my period until I > am 17. Then I am going to spray computer screen > cleaner onto a rag and inhale it from a paper bag > till the fighting stops in my head. Then I am going > to date a man who is 18 years older than I am and > get preggers. Then I am going to discover meth. > > I'm just say'n...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" wrote: > > If mommy keeps using my name when she fights with daddy I am > going to start cutting myself again with the sharpened end > of the paper clip. Than I am going to wet my bed and not have > my period until I am 17. Then I am going to spray computer > screen cleaner onto a rag and inhale it from a paper bag till > the fighting stops in my head. Then I am going to date a man > who is 18 years older than I am and get preggers. Then I am > going to discover meth. > > I'm just say'n... I hadn't gotten that far in imagining the Blessed Offspring's personality development yet. I was still imagining them in French grade school, stealing Daddy's crown to take to school for "show and tell." "My Daddy is king of the Global Country Of Enlightenment. My bet is that the issue of whether living in a presumably Vastu condo in the effulgent field of the ME generated by a noted butt- bouncer makes one "invincible" is going to be settled on the playground that very day. Can you imagine the pressure they'll be under to get good grades in school? "You *have* to get all A's because any other letter is Vedically so...so...not the first letter." As for what happens when they do grow to boinkable age, I'm just wondering how Da King is going to react when a decrepit 500-pound Bevan starts hitting on them. "I'm the *real* Tower Of Invincibility in your Daddy's king- dom, cutey...wanna see?" :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
If mommy keeps using my name when she fights with daddy I am going to start cutting myself again with the sharpened end of the paper clip. Than I am going to wet my bed and not have my period until I am 17. Then I am going to spray computer screen cleaner onto a rag and inhale it from a paper bag till the fighting stops in my head. Then I am going to date a man who is 18 years older than I am and get preggers. Then I am going to discover meth. I'm just say'n... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > If the Judys of the TM movement have their way and > > try to "pin this" all on "King" Tony and convince > > people that hiding his family was all *his* idea, > > OoooPsie. Barry's stepped in it again. > > The other day, Curtis wrote: > > "I am enjoying spinning out the implications of > such a revelation with people like yourself who > seem to not have a desire to spin this at any > cost to the facts as we know them. You also don't > seem inclined to pretend this means nothing." > > Curtis was addressing me. > > Barry to Curtis, the previous day: > > "It's really great to have your real-world > perspective back here, Curtis." > > I guess Barry will now have to retract that comment, > since Curtis's perspective is obviously not "real- > world" if he doesn't believe I'm trying to spin this > against the facts as we know them and that I'm > inclined to pretend it means nothing. > > It means little to me personally, but it's > obviously big news to the movement. But it's a HUGE > deal for Barry personally, and he simply can't > accept that it doesn't freak everybody else out to > the same degree. > > Barry will also have to include Curtis among "the > Judys of the TM movement," since Curtis has been > entertaining the possibility that so outrages Barry > that it was Tony (and/or his wife) who insisted on > keeping the marriage secret. > > Right, Barry? We're all waiting to hear your > denunciation of Curtis for his betrayal and his > delusions. > > > and that Maharishi was an unwilling or unwitting > > dupe, THAT STILL MAKES MAHARISHI A DUPE. > > It sure does. As I said, it looks like Tony had > MMY over a barrel. > > > > In my experience, learning that the spiritual > > teacher you once thought was perfect > > (Remember, Barry's still foaming at the mouth here > about "the Judys of the TM movement.") > > "The Judys of the movement" never thought MMY > was perfect--as Barry knows, because I've said > so any number of times. It's a *given* that he > wasn't perfect. Big whoop. What Barry can't stand > is that not everybody thinks MMY not being perfect > makes him a monster. > > wasn't is a > > lot easier to deal with and live with than learn- > > ing that he was an easily-duped idiot. And the > > "it was all Tony's idea" folks are trying to > > steer folks to believing the latter. > > No question about it. I'd quibble with the words > "duped" and "idiot," but MMY certainly doesn't > come off looking very good. > > Looks like there are three main possibilities: > > 1. Tony wanted to get married. MMY objected. Tony > told him he'd abdicate his kingship if MMY tried > to stand in his way. MMY, knowing what a disaster > that would be, was forced to give in on the > marriage but insisted that it be kept secret. > Tony wasn't happy with that, but they came to a > compromise: Tony wouldn't spill the beans until > after MMY was gone. > > 2. MMY was *delighted* that Tony was going to get > married and couldn't wait to start planning the > royal wedding. Tony promptly nipped that in the > bud, saying he (and/or his wife) wanted to keep > it private, and that he'd abdicate if MMY didn't > keep his mouth shut. MMY, knowing what a disaster > that would be, was forced to give in, but insisted > that Tony agree to make the marriage public once > his first child was in school. > > 3. It all happened pretty much as the TMO has > described it. > > The only possibility that doesn't work for me is > #3. > > I suppose there's a fourth possibility, that MMY > ordered Tony to get married *and* ordered him to > keep it secret. That's the only one that fits > Barry's notion that Tony is a total wuss who would > never stand up to MMY. But it seems vanishingly > unlikely to me. > > At any rate, what's hilarious about this rant of > Barry's is that he's painting *me* as trying to > spin this so MMY comes out looking like a rose, > when all the evidence of my posts is to the > contrary. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > If the Judys of the TM movement have their way and > try to "pin this" all on "King" Tony and convince > people that hiding his family was all *his* idea, OoooPsie. Barry's stepped in it again. The other day, Curtis wrote: "I am enjoying spinning out the implications of such a revelation with people like yourself who seem to not have a desire to spin this at any cost to the facts as we know them. You also don't seem inclined to pretend this means nothing." Curtis was addressing me. Barry to Curtis, the previous day: "It's really great to have your real-world perspective back here, Curtis." I guess Barry will now have to retract that comment, since Curtis's perspective is obviously not "real- world" if he doesn't believe I'm trying to spin this against the facts as we know them and that I'm inclined to pretend it means nothing. It means little to me personally, but it's obviously big news to the movement. But it's a HUGE deal for Barry personally, and he simply can't accept that it doesn't freak everybody else out to the same degree. Barry will also have to include Curtis among "the Judys of the TM movement," since Curtis has been entertaining the possibility that so outrages Barry that it was Tony (and/or his wife) who insisted on keeping the marriage secret. Right, Barry? We're all waiting to hear your denunciation of Curtis for his betrayal and his delusions. > and that Maharishi was an unwilling or unwitting > dupe, THAT STILL MAKES MAHARISHI A DUPE. It sure does. As I said, it looks like Tony had MMY over a barrel. > In my experience, learning that the spiritual > teacher you once thought was perfect (Remember, Barry's still foaming at the mouth here about "the Judys of the TM movement.") "The Judys of the movement" never thought MMY was perfect--as Barry knows, because I've said so any number of times. It's a *given* that he wasn't perfect. Big whoop. What Barry can't stand is that not everybody thinks MMY not being perfect makes him a monster. wasn't is a > lot easier to deal with and live with than learn- > ing that he was an easily-duped idiot. And the > "it was all Tony's idea" folks are trying to > steer folks to believing the latter. No question about it. I'd quibble with the words "duped" and "idiot," but MMY certainly doesn't come off looking very good. Looks like there are three main possibilities: 1. Tony wanted to get married. MMY objected. Tony told him he'd abdicate his kingship if MMY tried to stand in his way. MMY, knowing what a disaster that would be, was forced to give in on the marriage but insisted that it be kept secret. Tony wasn't happy with that, but they came to a compromise: Tony wouldn't spill the beans until after MMY was gone. 2. MMY was *delighted* that Tony was going to get married and couldn't wait to start planning the royal wedding. Tony promptly nipped that in the bud, saying he (and/or his wife) wanted to keep it private, and that he'd abdicate if MMY didn't keep his mouth shut. MMY, knowing what a disaster that would be, was forced to give in, but insisted that Tony agree to make the marriage public once his first child was in school. 3. It all happened pretty much as the TMO has described it. The only possibility that doesn't work for me is #3. I suppose there's a fourth possibility, that MMY ordered Tony to get married *and* ordered him to keep it secret. That's the only one that fits Barry's notion that Tony is a total wuss who would never stand up to MMY. But it seems vanishingly unlikely to me. At any rate, what's hilarious about this rant of Barry's is that he's painting *me* as trying to spin this so MMY comes out looking like a rose, when all the evidence of my posts is to the contrary.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
TurquoiseB wrote: > If the Judys of the TM movement have their way > and try to "pin this" all on "King" Tony and > convince people that hiding his family was all > *his* idea, and that Maharishi was an unwilling > or unwitting dupe, THAT STILL MAKES MAHARISHI A > DUPE... > Turq - You're just bullshitting yourself - nobody except you cares what happens in the TM movement.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" wrote: > > So, what is Bevan saying here? > > That we're supposed to be, "blissful and unified" in "warm and loving" > response to learning their secret. To just get on "fulfilling our duties > as Maharishi charged us to do". > > " May we go ahead together under Maharaja Adhiraj Raja Raam.. without delay." > > "Many may have heard some of this news, so we thought to let you know > What had unfolded. With best wishes, Jai Guru Dev Bevan." > > Hence this is Bevan's truth. The best he can do. Yes, and he does very well. - No explanation. Do you need an explanation on how to make children ?? - No apology. For what ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" wrote: > > So, what is Bevan saying here? > > That we're supposed to be, "blissful and unified" in "warm > and loving" response to learning their secret. To just get > on "fulfilling our duties as Maharishi charged us to do". > > " May we go ahead together under Maharaja Adhiraj Raja Raam.. > without delay." > > "Many may have heard some of this news, so we thought to let > you know What had unfolded. With best wishes, Jai Guru Dev Bevan." > > Hence this is Bevan's truth. The best he can do. No explanation. > No apology. A spiritual teacher? Integrity evidently is not a > suit that he seems to wear well. > > His memo reads more like the dressed up door keep in the Wiz of > Oz crying out, "Pay no attention to that man behind the > curtain!", just as the truth is coming out. > > Great spiritual teaching., Actually, it's pretty much the *standard* "spiritual teaching" in the face of revelations like this. "When the snit hits the fan, pretend that there is no snit, and go on about 'business as usual.'" If it works, you got away with it, and the leaky life- boat continues on its way. If it doesn't, sooner or later you're going to have to throw someone overboard to the sharks. I already mentioned that I detected a bit of "For Brutus is an honorable man..." in Bevan's announcement. I do. While on the surface praising "King" Tony, he is really *distancing himself* from him, phrasing everything in the third person, and quoting *other people's* exalted views of him and descriptions of him. IMO he's doing this so that if it comes to tossing him to the sharks, he personally is not intimately associated with the soon-to-be sharkfood. "All I did was to say about him what Maharishi said about him. It's not *my* scandal." The thing is, that's a scandal, too. If the Judys of the TM movement have their way and try to "pin this" all on "King" Tony and convince people that hiding his family was all *his* idea, and that Maharishi was an unwilling or unwitting dupe, THAT STILL MAKES MAHARISHI A DUPE. If they have their way, what does it say about Maharishi's 'seeing' that he never saw this coming, and in a person whom he "upheld Maharaja Adhiraj Raja Raam on the level of the Purushottoma itself--the supreme Purusha, the eternal silence in which Prakriti (infinite dynamism) is perpetually flowing--in the line of Sri Raam--Raja Raam of Ayodhya--for whom Maharishi named our Maharaja?" If the tiny remnants of a once-large organization get their collective panties in a twist over this snit hitting the fan, and they choose to take the "easy way out" and blame it all on "King" Tony, WHAT DOES MAHARISHI'S LACK OF SEEING SAY ABOUT *HIM*? If he could have been so *wrong* about "King" Tony, then what *else* could he have been wrong about? That's the abyss they're steering the dying TM movement into by suggesting that it was "all Da King's fault." Better in my opinion to just suck it up and say, "So. We were lied to. Systematically, for years. By *both* Maharishi and Tony. That's interesting...now what do we DO with this?" In my experience, learning that the spiritual teacher you once thought was perfect wasn't is a lot easier to deal with and live with than learn- ing that he was an easily-duped idiot. And the "it was all Tony's idea" folks are trying to steer folks to believing the latter.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bevan's Maharaja Adhiraj Rajaraam is married with 2 daughters
So, what is Bevan saying here? That we're supposed to be, "blissful and unified" in "warm and loving" response to learning their secret. To just get on "fulfilling our duties as Maharishi charged us to do". " May we go ahead together under Maharaja Adhiraj Raja Raam.. without delay." "Many may have heard some of this news, so we thought to let you know What had unfolded. With best wishes, Jai Guru Dev Bevan." Hence this is Bevan's truth. The best he can do. No explanation. No apology. A spiritual teacher? Integrity evidently is not a suit that he seems to wear well. His memo reads more like the dressed up door keep in the Wiz of Oz crying out, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!", just as the truth is coming out. Great spiritual teaching., > > > Juxtaposing these two announcements, some sub-text going on with the > Winn's spin? > > Hagelin appearing frank and truthful, on paper. > > They could use > > more of the later. > > God help 'em. > > JGD, > > -D in FF > > > > > > > > Here is what looks to me like it may be the original source email: > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BuddhaAtTheGasPump/message/1837 > > > > - > > > > >paste from BuddhaATGP:> > > >From Raja Wynne and Maureen for you to enjoy. > > > > Jai Guru Dev > > Graeme > > > > Dear Graeme - Here is some wonderful news. Please let your Governors > and sidhas know without making a grand formal announcement or fanfare. > I'm sure that all the families of New Zealand will be thrilled and > delighted. > > Jai Guru Dev > > Raja Wynne and Maureen > > > > > > > > > > Dear Rajas and Ministers, > In a beautiful, tender moment following our Gita Study today, > Maharaja-ji quietly shared the following. > He announced that, with Maharishi's blessing, he had gotten married some > eight years ago, and has two beautiful daughters, age 5-1/2 and 3-1/2. > Maharishi had requested him to, for the children's sake, maintain the > privacy of his family until the oldest was old enough to begin school. > That time has come, and Maharaja therefore felt it was proper to share > this news with his family of Rajas and Ministers and global leadership. > Maharishi had told him that, in the tradition of rulership, having the > support of a Royal Family brought stability and strength to the Kingdom. > Of course, as was obvious to all--and as Maharaja himself > emphasized--nothing has changed, or would change, in his Administration, > and his continued one-pointed focus on the fulfillment of Maharishi's > global legacy: bringing Total Knowledge--Raam Raj--to the world, while > focussing on his own deep silence and realization of the supreme goal of > Brahmi Chetana. > Many were surprised, including me, but the atmosphere was most festive > and joyous. > Jai Guru Dev, John > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > > > > > > > I missed how Brian Horsfield is involved in this. Please explain. > > > > > > I didn't notice it before, but he made the original post in this > thread: > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/238789 > > > > > > Here is what looks to me like it may be the original source email: > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BuddhaAtTheGasPump/message/1837 > > > > > >
