Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Ravi Chivukula]

If I am not mistaken - Curtis refers to those, his rant, as incoherent
tirades.


On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 11:51 AM, authfriend  wrote:

> **
>
>
> Still smarting, arn'cha, Curtis? Por baby.
> I think you could use a little renewal yourself.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > And still no pat on the head? No passing of the torch from the
> previously enlightened to the currently enlightened? Robin please take pity
> on this poor soul. This is the second time since your post that Jim has
> begged you for just a moment of your time to help him reinforce his sence
> of special identity. A little collegial high fiving from the perspective of
> another one,who has risen so far above the rest of us. ( In their own
> minds.). Even though you have renounced your formal title, please have some
> compassion on those who still need the velvet robes of
> specialnessintudinment.
> >
> > We both know why this can never happen don't we? I get it, mums the
> word.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, yeah I found Robin's analysis really helpful. As for integrity or
> lack thereof, all of us have to mature to a point where we see the long
> term usefulness of integrity.
> > >
> > > Both recognizing our identity in full, so that we actually know what
> personal integrity feels like, and maturing somewhat, so that immediate
> gratification is tempered with self-knowledge, make integrity a value in
> life.
> > >
> > > If on the other hand, one is unsure of oneself, emotionally immature,
> and seeking instant gratification, then integrity is just a definition in a
> dictionary.
> > >
> > > So as far as a corruption of one's integrity, that can only occur if
> integrity is recognized as a value. Everyone pretends to have it, because
> it is socially acceptable. However, there are a lot of boys running around
> in men's clothing these days, and to them, everything is merely kid's play.
> That is why they act, and get treated, like children. Emotional blindness
> caused by ego tripping. Thy 'Emperor' has no clothes.
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Robin, I enjoyed both your assessment of Barry's persona
> > > > > earlier on here, and your response to Curtis below. Sane,
> > > > > comprehensive, honest, clear, brilliantly written,
> > > > > deconstructed perfectly, mental molecular gastronomy. :-)
> > > > > It was a very enjoyable process to follow and validate
> > > > > each turn of your mind as you witnessed it. Alive and real.
> > > >
> > > > I couldn't agree more (albeit not as eloquently). I can't say I
> > > > blame Barry's and Curtis's fans for finding Robin's analyses of
> > > > their heroes...uh...distressing. They were devastatingly accurate.
> > > >
> > > > I would have been deeply impressed by Robin's insights even if
> > > > I had begun lurking on FFL right after Robin left at Christmas,
> > > > having no idea who he, Curtis, or Barry were, but following the
> > > > posts of the latter two.
> > > >
> > > > As I read the posts from last week, it was disturbing to see
> > > > the increasing degree of corruption in the posts of several of
> > > > the most vocal participants here, primarily Barry, Curtis, and
> > > > navashok. The more they're able to get away with, the more they
> > > > assume they *can* get away with, so the corruption is
> > > > progressive.
> > > >
> > > > What's equally distressing is that most here *let* them get
> > > > away with it, either because they don't care, or because
> > > > they simply aren't perceptive enough to notice.
> > > >
> > > > (Corruption = "impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral
> > > > principle")
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>  
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[authfriend]

Still smarting, arn'cha, Curtis? Por baby.
I think you could use a little renewal yourself.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> And still no pat on the head?  No passing of the torch from the previously 
> enlightened to the currently enlightened?  Robin please take pity on this 
> poor soul.  This is the second time since your post that Jim has begged you 
> for just a moment of your time to help him reinforce his sence of special 
> identity.  A little collegial high fiving from the perspective of another 
> one,who has risen so far above the rest of us. ( In their own minds.). Even 
> though you have renounced your formal title, please have some compassion on 
> those who still need the velvet robes of specialnessintudinment.
> 
> We both know why this can never happen don't we?  I get it, mums the word. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Hi, yeah I found Robin's analysis really helpful. As for integrity or lack 
> > thereof, all of us have to mature to a point where we see the long term 
> > usefulness of integrity. 
> > 
> > Both recognizing our identity in full, so that we actually know what 
> > personal integrity feels like, and maturing somewhat, so that immediate 
> > gratification is tempered with self-knowledge, make integrity a value in 
> > life. 
> > 
> > If on the other hand, one is unsure of oneself, emotionally immature,  and 
> > seeking instant gratification, then integrity is just a definition in a 
> > dictionary.
> > 
> > So as far as a corruption of one's integrity, that can only occur if 
> > integrity is recognized as a value. Everyone pretends to have it, because 
> > it is socially acceptable. However, there are a lot of boys running around 
> > in men's clothing these days, and to them, everything is merely kid's play. 
> > That is why they act, and get treated, like children. Emotional blindness 
> > caused by ego tripping. Thy 'Emperor' has no clothes.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Robin, I enjoyed both your assessment of Barry's persona
> > > > earlier on here, and your response to Curtis below. Sane,
> > > > comprehensive, honest, clear, brilliantly written,
> > > > deconstructed perfectly, mental molecular gastronomy. :-)
> > > > It was a very enjoyable process to follow and validate
> > > > each turn of your mind as you witnessed it. Alive and real. 
> > > 
> > > I couldn't agree more (albeit not as eloquently). I can't say I
> > > blame Barry's and Curtis's fans for finding Robin's analyses of
> > > their heroes...uh...distressing. They were devastatingly accurate.
> > > 
> > > I would have been deeply impressed by Robin's insights even if
> > > I had begun lurking on FFL right after Robin left at Christmas,
> > > having no idea who he, Curtis, or Barry were, but following the
> > > posts of the latter two.
> > > 
> > > As I read the posts from last week, it was disturbing to see
> > > the increasing degree of corruption in the posts of several of
> > > the most vocal participants here, primarily Barry, Curtis, and
> > > navashok. The more they're able to get away with, the more they
> > > assume they *can* get away with, so the corruption is
> > > progressive.
> > > 
> > > What's equally distressing is that most here *let* them get
> > > away with it, either because they don't care, or because
> > > they simply aren't perceptive enough to notice.
> > > 
> > > (Corruption = "impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral
> > > principle")
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[curtisdeltablues]

And still no pat on the head?  No passing of the torch from the previously 
enlightened to the currently enlightened?  Robin please take pity on this poor 
soul.  This is the second time since your post that Jim has begged you for just 
a moment of your time to help him reinforce his sence of special identity.  A 
little collegial high fiving from the perspective of another one,who has risen 
so far above the rest of us. ( In their own minds.). Even though you have 
renounced your formal title, please have some compassion on those who still 
need the velvet robes of specialnessintudinment.

We both know why this can never happen don't we?  I get it, mums the word. 






--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Hi, yeah I found Robin's analysis really helpful. As for integrity or lack 
> thereof, all of us have to mature to a point where we see the long term 
> usefulness of integrity. 
> 
> Both recognizing our identity in full, so that we actually know what personal 
> integrity feels like, and maturing somewhat, so that immediate gratification 
> is tempered with self-knowledge, make integrity a value in life. 
> 
> If on the other hand, one is unsure of oneself, emotionally immature,  and 
> seeking instant gratification, then integrity is just a definition in a 
> dictionary.
> 
> So as far as a corruption of one's integrity, that can only occur if 
> integrity is recognized as a value. Everyone pretends to have it, because it 
> is socially acceptable. However, there are a lot of boys running around in 
> men's clothing these days, and to them, everything is merely kid's play. That 
> is why they act, and get treated, like children. Emotional blindness caused 
> by ego tripping. Thy 'Emperor' has no clothes.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > Robin, I enjoyed both your assessment of Barry's persona
> > > earlier on here, and your response to Curtis below. Sane,
> > > comprehensive, honest, clear, brilliantly written,
> > > deconstructed perfectly, mental molecular gastronomy. :-)
> > > It was a very enjoyable process to follow and validate
> > > each turn of your mind as you witnessed it. Alive and real. 
> > 
> > I couldn't agree more (albeit not as eloquently). I can't say I
> > blame Barry's and Curtis's fans for finding Robin's analyses of
> > their heroes...uh...distressing. They were devastatingly accurate.
> > 
> > I would have been deeply impressed by Robin's insights even if
> > I had begun lurking on FFL right after Robin left at Christmas,
> > having no idea who he, Curtis, or Barry were, but following the
> > posts of the latter two.
> > 
> > As I read the posts from last week, it was disturbing to see
> > the increasing degree of corruption in the posts of several of
> > the most vocal participants here, primarily Barry, Curtis, and
> > navashok. The more they're able to get away with, the more they
> > assume they *can* get away with, so the corruption is
> > progressive.
> > 
> > What's equally distressing is that most here *let* them get
> > away with it, either because they don't care, or because
> > they simply aren't perceptive enough to notice.
> > 
> > (Corruption = "impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral
> > principle")
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[doctordumbass]

Hi, yeah I found Robin's analysis really helpful. As for integrity or lack 
thereof, all of us have to mature to a point where we see the long term 
usefulness of integrity. 

Both recognizing our identity in full, so that we actually know what personal 
integrity feels like, and maturing somewhat, so that immediate gratification is 
tempered with self-knowledge, make integrity a value in life. 

If on the other hand, one is unsure of oneself, emotionally immature,  and 
seeking instant gratification, then integrity is just a definition in a 
dictionary.

So as far as a corruption of one's integrity, that can only occur if integrity 
is recognized as a value. Everyone pretends to have it, because it is socially 
acceptable. However, there are a lot of boys running around in men's clothing 
these days, and to them, everything is merely kid's play. That is why they act, 
and get treated, like children. Emotional blindness caused by ego tripping. Thy 
'Emperor' has no clothes.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Robin, I enjoyed both your assessment of Barry's persona
> > earlier on here, and your response to Curtis below. Sane,
> > comprehensive, honest, clear, brilliantly written,
> > deconstructed perfectly, mental molecular gastronomy. :-)
> > It was a very enjoyable process to follow and validate
> > each turn of your mind as you witnessed it. Alive and real. 
> 
> I couldn't agree more (albeit not as eloquently). I can't say I
> blame Barry's and Curtis's fans for finding Robin's analyses of
> their heroes...uh...distressing. They were devastatingly accurate.
> 
> I would have been deeply impressed by Robin's insights even if
> I had begun lurking on FFL right after Robin left at Christmas,
> having no idea who he, Curtis, or Barry were, but following the
> posts of the latter two.
> 
> As I read the posts from last week, it was disturbing to see
> the increasing degree of corruption in the posts of several of
> the most vocal participants here, primarily Barry, Curtis, and
> navashok. The more they're able to get away with, the more they
> assume they *can* get away with, so the corruption is
> progressive.
> 
> What's equally distressing is that most here *let* them get
> away with it, either because they don't care, or because
> they simply aren't perceptive enough to notice.
> 
> (Corruption = "impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral
> principle")
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Robin, I enjoyed both your assessment of Barry's persona
> earlier on here, and your response to Curtis below. Sane,
> comprehensive, honest, clear, brilliantly written,
> deconstructed perfectly, mental molecular gastronomy. :-)
> It was a very enjoyable process to follow and validate
> each turn of your mind as you witnessed it. Alive and real. 

I couldn't agree more (albeit not as eloquently). I can't say I
blame Barry's and Curtis's fans for finding Robin's analyses of
their heroes...uh...distressing. They were devastatingly accurate.

I would have been deeply impressed by Robin's insights even if
I had begun lurking on FFL right after Robin left at Christmas,
having no idea who he, Curtis, or Barry were, but following the
posts of the latter two.

As I read the posts from last week, it was disturbing to see
the increasing degree of corruption in the posts of several of
the most vocal participants here, primarily Barry, Curtis, and
navashok. The more they're able to get away with, the more they
assume they *can* get away with, so the corruption is
progressive.

What's equally distressing is that most here *let* them get
away with it, either because they don't care, or because
they simply aren't perceptive enough to notice.

(Corruption = "impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral
principle")

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
>  
> 
> > > Even better, since I've recently learned how to hack
> > > iPhone utilities, one could provide him a built-in
> > > onscreen keyboard on the iPhone that lacked the letter 
> > > "I." My bet is that he wouldn't be able to complete 
> > > a single post. :-) :-) :-)

This quoted part of your message was written by Barry.
> 
>  
> 
> > If you want to make a keyboard for Robin, leaving out the combinations 
> > 'space' 'm' 'e' 'space' and 'space' 'm' 'y' 'space' might also be helpful, 
> > otherwise he might go Tonto on us.
> 
> Robin without the letter I? That's Rob'n. Then program the text-compactor 
> into his editor, and let Bhairitu make it into a video-clip.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4HZPMuj6-o
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[navashok]

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

> > Even better, since I've recently learned how to hack
> > iPhone utilities, one could provide him a built-in
> > onscreen keyboard on the iPhone that lacked the letter 
> > "I." My bet is that he wouldn't be able to complete 
> > a single post. :-) :-) :-)

 

> If you want to make a keyboard for Robin, leaving out the combinations 
> 'space' 'm' 'e' 'space' and 'space' 'm' 'y' 'space' might also be helpful, 
> otherwise he might go Tonto on us.

Robin without the letter I? That's Rob'n. Then program the text-compactor into 
his editor, and let Bhairitu make it into a video-clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4HZPMuj6-o

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Ravi Chivukula]

Nope - Guru Xeno needs that, not me. Guru Xeno - a dead man with dead
beliefs, of dead words, of platitudes, of philosophy, of stupid apps.

I always want to get better, I am always learning - never happy with
myself, I am a perfectionist, always looking for more data to learn
something new. I never want to be caught frozen, immobile by any set of
beliefs. I always want to be spontaneous, want my words to be a
performance, should touch the person I am interacting with.

I respond with total sincerity or total insincerity. With sincerity is the
nice, humble guy who loves unconditionally or the arrogant guy who
humiliates in pure unconditioned anger. Within the insincerity is the
irony, sarcasm and playful humor and I don't know how I will respond - so
there, that's it - the truth. So give up your quest for analyzing my
motives.

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:42 PM, seventhray27 wrote:

> **
>
>
> Ravi,
>
> You've got me here.  I had an insult all planned out for what I
> anticipated to be your reply, but you've thrown me for a loop here.
>
> Now, tell me, have you been tinkering with that new condensed text app?
> Go ahead, tell me the truth.
>
> I'm giving you this round Ravi.  Well done.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> wrote:
> >
> > LOL..Steve you are cracking me up, you clearly have trouble abiding by
> our
> > rules - that thou shall not analyze people's motivations.
> >
> > Perhaps looking at the following list may help you focus better. Here's
> the
> > list of things you have come up analyzing my motives - this is just in
> the
> > recent past
> >
> > 1) Ravi craves attention and adulation (This post) (That would be
> actually
> > your hero/pack leader - His Holiness Curtis)
> > 2) Ravi should free himself from any remants(sic) of British Imperialism
> > in his mind and express himself in a more liberated way (Yesterday) (This
> > really cracked me up but I didn't have time to reply)
> > 3) Ravi is stressed out working in a cubicle (Last week)
> > 4) Ravi is stressed out being single (Last week)
> > 5) Ravi is eager to peddle a list of beliefs (Last week + This post)
> > 6) Ravi fashions himself as a Guru (Last week + This post + Last 3 years)
> > (He better get out of the damn cubicle..LOL)
> > 7) Ravi is a suspected murderer (of his girlfriend) (Few weeks back) (Not
> > at all compatible with #6, LOL)
> >
> > OK that's all I have now Stevie baby. I may add more - but this should
> help
> > I promise.
> >
> > As always - I love you like a brother.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 5:55 PM, seventhray27 steve.sundur@...wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on
> the
> > > same page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are
> > > totally clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I
> think
> > > she will be a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of
> > > neuroscience soon !!!
> > >
> > > Easy Ravi baby, easy. I think you are becoming a little (more than
> usual)
> > > unhinged here.
> > >
> > > Somebody, somebody, give little Ravi a pat on the head, or deputize him
> > > (as has been suggested), or give him SOME attention of some kind.
> > >
> > > Okay, I will.
> > >
> > > Hey Ravi, you are really an awesome guy! When you walk into a room,
> > > EVERYONE turns their head and remarks what a presence has just arrived.
> > > See everyone crowding around you to hear your pearls of wisdom.
> > >
> > > Whew! Will that suffice for now Ravi?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108 no_reply@...:
>
> > > >
> > > > > Curtis & Ann,
> > > > >
> > > > > I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so
> > > rational, so calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so
> > > everthing. I hope all conversations here aspire to this level. Thank
> you.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" awoelflebater@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one
> > > level it seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone
> past
> > > that into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some of what
> > > that territory is below:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"
> > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him.>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[seventhray27]

Ravi,

You've got me here.  I had an insult all planned out for what I
anticipated to be your reply, but you've thrown me for a loop here.

Now, tell me, have you been tinkering with that new condensed text app? 
Go ahead, tell me the truth.

I'm giving you this round Ravi.  Well done.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
> LOL..Steve you are cracking me up, you clearly have trouble abiding by
our
> rules - that thou shall not analyze people's motivations.
>
> Perhaps looking at the following list may help you focus better.
Here's the
> list of things you have come up analyzing my motives - this is just in
the
> recent past
>
> 1) Ravi craves attention and adulation (This post) (That would be
actually
> your hero/pack leader - His Holiness Curtis)
> 2) Ravi should free himself from any remants(sic) of British
Imperialism
> in his mind and express himself in a more liberated way (Yesterday)
(This
> really cracked me up but I didn't have time to reply)
> 3) Ravi is stressed out working in a cubicle (Last week)
> 4) Ravi is stressed out being single (Last week)
> 5) Ravi is eager to peddle a list of beliefs (Last week + This post)
> 6) Ravi fashions himself as a Guru (Last week + This post + Last 3
years)
> (He better get out of the damn cubicle..LOL)
> 7) Ravi is a suspected murderer (of his girlfriend) (Few weeks back)
(Not
> at all compatible with #6, LOL)
>
> OK that's all I have now Stevie baby. I may add more - but this should
help
> I promise.
>
> As always - I love you like a brother.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 5:55 PM, seventhray27 steve.sundur@...wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on
the
> > same page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts
are
> > totally clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I
think
> > she will be a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of
> > neuroscience soon !!!
> >
> > Easy Ravi baby, easy. I think you are becoming a little (more than
usual)
> > unhinged here.
> >
> > Somebody, somebody, give little Ravi a pat on the head, or deputize
him
> > (as has been suggested), or give him SOME attention of some kind.
> >
> > Okay, I will.
> >
> > Hey Ravi, you are really an awesome guy! When you walk into a room,
> > EVERYONE turns their head and remarks what a presence has just
arrived.
> > See everyone crowding around you to hear your pearls of wisdom.
> >
> > Whew! Will that suffice for now Ravi?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108 no_reply@...:
> > >
> > > > Curtis & Ann,
> > > >
> > > > I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so
> > rational, so calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so
> > everthing. I hope all conversations here aspire to this level. Thank
you.
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" awoelflebater@
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on
one
> > level it seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone
past
> > that into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some of
what
> > that territory is below:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" 
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> >  wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"
> >  wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with
him.>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a
lot
> > of people attacking him personally.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  > transparent and quite simple. They include more than the one I just
> > mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from
> > others.>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of
that
> > happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > < If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a
> > different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very
rigid
> > beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question
his
> > position he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of
boringness,
> > cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person.>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar
with
> > the predictable "Barry is bad" meme that flows freely here. I see
more
> > actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not
denying
> > that he both gives as good as he g

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Ravi Chivukula]

LOL..Steve you are cracking me up, you clearly have trouble abiding by our
rules - that thou shall not analyze people's motivations.

Perhaps looking at the following list may help you focus better. Here's the
list of things you have come up analyzing my motives - this is just in the
recent past

1) Ravi craves attention and adulation (This post) (That would be actually
your hero/pack leader - His Holiness Curtis)
2) Ravi should  free himself from any remants(sic) of British Imperialism
in his mind and express himself in a more liberated way (Yesterday) (This
really cracked me up but I didn't have time to reply)
3) Ravi is stressed out working in a cubicle (Last week)
4) Ravi is stressed out being single (Last week)
5) Ravi is eager to peddle a list of beliefs (Last week + This post)
6) Ravi fashions himself as a Guru (Last week + This post + Last 3 years)
(He better get out of the damn cubicle..LOL)
7) Ravi is a suspected murderer (of his girlfriend) (Few weeks back) (Not
at all compatible with #6, LOL)

OK that's all I have now Stevie baby. I may add more - but this should help
I promise.

As always - I love you like a brother.


On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 5:55 PM, seventhray27 wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on the
> same page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are
> totally clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I think
> she will be a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of
> neuroscience soon !!!
>
> Easy Ravi baby, easy. I think you are becoming a little (more than usual)
> unhinged here.
>
> Somebody, somebody, give little Ravi a pat on the head, or deputize him
> (as has been suggested), or give him SOME attention of some kind.
>
> Okay, I will.
>
> Hey Ravi, you are really an awesome guy!  When you walk into a room,
> EVERYONE turns their head and remarks what a presence has just arrived.
> See everyone crowding around you to hear your pearls of wisdom.
>
> Whew! Will that suffice for now Ravi?
>
>
> >
> > On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108 no_reply@yahoogroups.comwrote:
> >
> > > Curtis & Ann,
> > >
> > > I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so
> rational, so calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so
> everthing. I hope all conversations here aspire to this level. Thank you.
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" awoelflebater@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one
> level it seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone past
> that into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some of what
> that territory is below:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" 
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"
>  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him.>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot
> of people attacking him personally.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  transparent and quite simple. They include more than the one I just
> mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from
> others.>
> > > > >
> > > > > He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that
> happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.)
> > > > >
> > > > > < If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a
> different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid
> beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question his
> position he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of boringness,
> cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person.>
> > > > >
> > > > > I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with
> the predictable "Barry is bad" meme that flows freely here. I see more
> actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not denying
> that he both gives as good as he gets and sometime initiates the insult
> cycle as he did with you and Robin. But since then the nature of your posts
> about him have been more insult to belief challenging as has Robin's.
> > > >
> > > > Barry aside and generally speaking I think when one challenges
> someone it can take many forms. It can come across as insulting, it can
> come across as inappropriate or harsh. One can challenge beliefs by poking
> at the character of a man. You can expose or reveal something about someone
> by using the back door. A conversation doesn't have to be about how someone
> feels ab

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
 wrote:
>
> Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on the
same page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are
totally clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I think
she will be a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of
neuroscience soon !!!

Easy Ravi baby, easy. I think you are becoming a little (more than
usual) unhinged here.

Somebody, somebody, give little Ravi a pat on the head, or deputize him
(as has been suggested), or give him SOME attention of some kind.

Okay, I will.

Hey Ravi, you are really an awesome guy!  When you walk into a room,
EVERYONE turns their head and remarks what a presence has just arrived. 
See everyone crowding around you to hear your pearls of wisdom.

Whew! Will that suffice for now Ravi?



>
> On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
wrote:
>
> > Curtis & Ann,
> >
> > I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so
rational, so calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so
everthing. I hope all conversations here aspire to this level. Thank
you.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" awoelflebater@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one
level it seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone
past that into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some of
what that territory is below:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" 
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"
 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.
> > > > >
> > > > > Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him.>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot
of people attacking him personally.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that
happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.)
> > > >
> > > > < If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a
different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very
rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question
his position he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of
boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that
person.>
> > > >
> > > > I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with
the predictable "Barry is bad" meme that flows freely here. I see more
actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not
denying that he both gives as good as he gets and sometime initiates the
insult cycle as he did with you and Robin. But since then the nature of
your posts about him have been more insult to belief challenging as has
Robin's.
> > >
> > > Barry aside and generally speaking I think when one challenges
someone it can take many forms. It can come across as insulting, it can
come across as inappropriate or harsh. One can challenge beliefs by
poking at the character of a man. You can expose or reveal something
about someone by using the back door. A conversation doesn't have to be
about how someone feels about Buddhism, for example, to figure out how
Buddhist someone is in their life. Just like you can walk into someone's
house and come to understand, on some level, many aspects of their
personality, their priorities, their tastes, what is valued and what
isn't. Everything about what we do and wear and eat and read and watch
tell the world about us. So my point is, you don't have to talk about a
subject directly to come to understand how someone thinks about that
subject. Granted, it can be the most direct way but words are easy to
come by and actions and reactions under certain conditions can tell us
much about another's beliefs. (I am trying not to talk specifically
about Barry here and it may be coming out a bit unclear. I hope you
understand what I am trying to say.)
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not
like.
> > > > >
> > > > > Barry is never vulnerable on this forum. Ever.>
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He
didn't like you right off. So you only see the version of Barry that
applies to you, a person he does not respect.
> > > > >
> > > > > Barry doesn't begin to have the tools to "deal" with Robin. He
is so far out of his depth, his comfort zone his perception of what is
unknown or possible that to actually interact on even the most
superficial level with Robin would require something Barry simply does
not possess or refuses to acknowledge. It is kind of like asking a seal
to run the 100m dash in 1

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Your recent posts have been a model of clarity Curtis. 
> > I am working on a tablet with an onscreen keyboard, 
> > requiring brevity. I think Robin would benefit from 
> > being sentenced to using an iPhone or similar device 
> > (without voice control or physical keyboard) for a 
> > few years.
> 
> Even better, since I've recently learned how to hack
> iPhone utilities, one could provide him a built-in
> onscreen keyboard on the iPhone that lacked the letter 
> "I." My bet is that he wouldn't be able to complete 
> a single post. :-) :-) :-)
> 
> Just a joke. I have read the first ten words of the
> first "I'm bck!" post from Robin, and no more.
> I honestly haven't read a word of anything he's posted
> since, and won't in the future. I'm basing my joke on 
> his past narcissistic tendencies, back when I foolishly
> bothered with him. 
> 
> ALSO based on past experience, since I've been similarly
> NEXTing past the perpetrators of the latest "pile on" 
> session, I would imagine that a trend that weighs heavily 
> in their posts has to do with people "owing" them a response
> and "owing" them an argument if they disagree with some-
> thing that the person they're trying to entice into a 
> confrontation wants to argue about. 
> 
> My response to that, if it has indeed come up, is simple,
> and can be expressed in three words: "Get a life." 
> 
> As both navashok and Curtis have correctly perceived 
> about me, I don't feel that I "owe" ANYONE on this forum
> diddleysquat, let alone an argument if they're spoiling
> for one. I say what I have to say -- hopefully in my
> first post on a subject -- and then allow others to 
> either say what they have to say on the same subject
> in response or (more wisely) ignore what I said and
> use their energies on something they DO like if they
> didn't like what I said. 
> 
> This whole "confrontation" routine is classic Robin, 
> and classic Judy, and people have come to accept it as
> if it were both a "given," and that arguments were 
> something "owed" to them. Fat fucking chance. If they 
> want to argue, let them find people who like to argue. 
> I really DO prefer discussions in which people just 
> say what they think or believe, allow others to do 
> the same, and then END IT THERE. Nobody feels the
> need to "win," nobody feels the need to "prove them-
> selves right," and nobody feels the need to put down
> those who won't play these silly ego-games with them.
> 
> Try to IMAGINE the ego of someone who feels that they
> have to "prove themselves right" about something as 
> silly and petty as WHAT THEY BELIEVE. It boggles my mind
> that people who have been meditating for decades can
> still be so stuck in such samskaras. 

That is a rather long reply. I understand a professional writer has to keep in 
practice quantity on a deadline. Hope your move back to Paris went without much 
trouble. I think I would finding moving to another country rather daunting. But 
I am sort of a stick-in-the-mud sort of guy when it comes to travel; a 
magnesium flare has to be lit under my ass to get me moving.

If you want to make a keyboard for Robin, leaving out the combinations 'space' 
'm' 'e' 'space' and 'space' 'm' 'y' 'space' might also be helpful, otherwise he 
might go Tonto on us.

Me sign off now.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Ravi Chivukula]

Agree !!! We will always choose the clarity, brevity of Guru Xeno's inane 
platitudes and the clarity, brevity of His Holiness Curtis's devious 
disinterestedness. Fuck complexities - fuck all life's baffling, bewildering, 
puzzling contradictions. Let's all numb our pain, fears, insecurities thus.

Hail to Guru Xeno and His Holiness Curtis !!!


On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:04 PM, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius"  
wrote:

> Your recent posts have been a model of clarity Curtis. I am working on a 
> tablet with an onscreen keyboard, requiring brevity. I think Robin would 
> benefit from being sentenced to using an iPhone or similar device (without 
> voice control or physical keyboard) for a few years.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > Curtis: Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.
> > > 
> > > AWB: Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him.>
> > > 
> > > Curtis: I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot 
> > > of people
> > > attacking him personally.
> > > 
> > > Robin2: Curtis, you did not address A's point whatsoever. Does it seem 
> > > true that, over the years, Barry's antipathy (as he expresses it) towards 
> > > someone correlates significantly with the extent to which that person 
> > > contradicts Barry? I think it does. A made a simple declaration of this 
> > > fact.>
> > 
> > Me: I don't think it is factual. There is zero back and forth discussion 
> > going on between Barry and his detractors. So I believe the weight is more 
> > on personal attack. You and Ann see it differently. OK. I don't have to 
> > claim that you are being deceptive because you see it differently. You are 
> > missing the point that I disagree with Barry on many things and we get 
> > along fine. 
> > 
> > R: You have chosen to ignore the substance of what she said, turning it 
> > inside-out: Now it's others who are being accused of what A implied was a 
> > self-evident fact. This is cunning and deceptive. Why not just address A's 
> > point: Does Barry allow himself to separate an argument from the person who 
> > is making that argument, if that argument challenges what he believes? I 
> > have not seen him do this. And show me where someone, gratuitously, 
> > prejudicially, "attacks Barry personally". You know what Barry does; you 
> > have turned A's point around *without even attempting to take on what she 
> > said". This is a classic manoeuvre on your part, Curtis.
> > 
> > ME: And you are turning a disagreement into a accusatory insult.  Barry 
> > would not have responded to what you wrote, but I am. I don't need to "take 
> > on" what she said. Her opinion of Barry is not something I need to argue 
> > about. Remember I know Barry differently than you guys. I have zero 
> > interest in your take on him.  I am presenting mine, take it or leave it. 
> > 
> > > 
> > > And by the way, if you choose to answer this post, you will do the same 
> > > to the very point I am making right here. Watch for it.
> > 
> > ME: The Robin set-up. Does that really provide you intellectual 
> > satisfaction? It is so lame and intellectually lazy. I am presenting my 
> > view which is different from yours and does not conform to the tiny 
> > conditions you tried to fit me into. I don't need to argue with you about 
> > if people attack Barry personally with your added contrived criteria of 
> > "gratuitously, prejudicially,". That is your spin. I already said that 
> > Barry often starts it, so your point is irrelevant. If you want to 
> > understand my views you are going to have to go beyond the accusatory 
> > double bind set-ups that accuse me of nefarious agendas.
> > 
> > > 
> > > AWB:His criteria for liking or not liking someone are very transparent 
> > > and quite
> > > simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he
> > > dislikes personal challenge coming from others.>
> > > 
> > > Curtis: He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that 
> > > happened. ( His
> > > objection to my use of dislike here is noted.)
> > > 
> > > Robin2: Again, Curtis, you sidestep the very essence of what A is saying. 
> > > Now I ask you, Curtis, Does Barry like "personal challenges coming from 
> > > others"?>
> > 
> > M: I would say he has a much lower threshold for this here than I do.
> > 
> > R:< If we are to judge by his reaction (see my analysis of him), it would 
> > seem A is drawing an objective conclusion based on the data. >
> > 
> > ME; And once again you are trying to elevate a personal opinion to being 
> > more than that.
> > 
> > R: 
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Ravi Chivukula]

Oh LG, I take everything back. I should have never gotten mad at you - I 
apologize. You are from NC? You hit me at my sensitive spot - have two friends 
with connections there, both sweet, sensitive women, authentic unlike my 
neurotic aunt. No LG, I'm good - we are cool.

On Mar 25, 2013, at 11:12 AM, laughinggull108  wrote:

> Archives??? You mean there are archives here at FFL where anything the anyone 
> has written, even when they make total asses of themselves, is kept forever 
> and ever??? Please say it isn't true!
> 
> North Carolina
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  
> wrote:
> >
> > LG baby - I think you will be better off if you search the archives and 
> > read the art of irony as expounded by Robin, 'cause seriously your lame, 
> > retarded attempt at irony is pretty pathetic.
> > 
> > Where did you say you were from again - South or North Carolina? (Oh God - 
> > I beg you, please let it be NC).
> > 
> > 
> > On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, laughinggull108  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on the 
> > > > same page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are 
> > > > totally clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I 
> > > > think she will be a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of 
> > > > neuroscience soon !!!
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > (LJB in full prostrate e-position with e-hands touching His Holiness' 
> > > e-feet) If I may humbly offer a word of advice Your Worshipfulness? 
> > > (Permission granted by an e-tap to the e-head) Don't make the devotee 
> > > into the Devoted; it is too much of a burden for one to bare and I am 
> > > unworthy. (An e-nod of His e-head) And don't be afraid to say what You 
> > > really think. (E-eyes widen with understanding as LJB awkwardly backs 
> > > away remaining in full prostrate e-position)
> > > 
> > > > On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Curtis & Ann,
> > > > > 
> > > > > I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so 
> > > > > rational, so calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so 
> > > > > everthing. I hope all conversations here aspire to this level. Thank 
> > > > > you.
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one 
> > > > > > level it seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has 
> > > > > > gone past that into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch 
> > > > > > on some of what that territory is below:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
> > > > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him.>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot 
> > > > > > > of people attacking him personally. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  > > > > > > transparent and quite simple. They include more than the one I 
> > > > > > > just mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge 
> > > > > > > coming from others.>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that 
> > > > > > > happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > < If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a 
> > > > > > > different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his 
> > > > > > > very rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize 
> > > > > > > or question his position he will take that as a personal attack 
> > > > > > > or as a sign of boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or 
> > > > > > > stupidity on the part of that person.>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with 
> > > > > > > the predictable "Barry is bad" meme that flows freely here. I see 
> > > > > > > more actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I 
> > > > > > > am not denying that he both gives as good as he gets and sometime 
> > > > > > > initiates the insult cycle as he did with you and Robin. But 
> > > > > > > since then the nature of your posts about him have been more 
> > > > > > > insult to belief challenging as has Robin's.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Barry aside and generally speaking I thi

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[laughinggull108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> LG baby - I think you will be better off if you search the archives and read 
> the art of irony as expounded by Robin, 'cause seriously your lame, retarded 
> attempt at irony is pretty pathetic.

http://youtu.be/xDUKxVPKUt8

> Where did you say you were from again - South or North Carolina? (Oh God - I 
> beg you, please let it be NC).
> 
> 
> On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, laughinggull108  
> wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on the 
> > > same page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are 
> > > totally clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I think 
> > > she will be a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of 
> > > neuroscience soon !!!
> > > 
> > 
> > (LJB in full prostrate e-position with e-hands touching His Holiness' 
> > e-feet) If I may humbly offer a word of advice Your Worshipfulness? 
> > (Permission granted by an e-tap to the e-head) Don't make the devotee into 
> > the Devoted; it is too much of a burden for one to bare and I am unworthy. 
> > (An e-nod of His e-head) And don't be afraid to say what You really think. 
> > (E-eyes widen with understanding as LJB awkwardly backs away remaining in 
> > full prostrate e-position)
> > 
> > > On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108  
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Curtis & Ann,
> > > > 
> > > > I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so rational, 
> > > > so calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so everthing. I 
> > > > hope all conversations here aspire to this level. Thank you.
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one 
> > > > > level it seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone 
> > > > > past that into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some 
> > > > > of what that territory is below:
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
> > > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him.>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of 
> > > > > > people attacking him personally. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  > > > > > and quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, 
> > > > > > but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others.>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that 
> > > > > > happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > < If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a 
> > > > > > different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very 
> > > > > > rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or 
> > > > > > question his position he will take that as a personal attack or as 
> > > > > > a sign of boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on 
> > > > > > the part of that person.>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with the 
> > > > > > predictable "Barry is bad" meme that flows freely here. I see more 
> > > > > > actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not 
> > > > > > denying that he both gives as good as he gets and sometime 
> > > > > > initiates the insult cycle as he did with you and Robin. But since 
> > > > > > then the nature of your posts about him have been more insult to 
> > > > > > belief challenging as has Robin's.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Barry aside and generally speaking I think when one challenges 
> > > > > someone it can take many forms. It can come across as insulting, it 
> > > > > can come across as inappropriate or harsh. One can challenge beliefs 
> > > > > by poking at the character of a man. You can expose or reveal 
> > > > > something about someone by using the back door. A conversation 
> > > > > doesn't have to be about how someone feels about Buddhism, for 
> > > > > example, to figure out how Buddhist someone is in their life. Just 
> > > > > like you can walk into someone's house and come to understand, on 
> > > > > some level, many aspects of their personality, their priorities, 
> > > > > their tastes, what is valued and what isn't. Everything about what we 
> > > > > do and wear and eat and read and watch t

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[laughinggull108]

Archives??? You mean there are archives here at FFL where anything the anyone 
has written, even when they make total asses of themselves, is kept forever and 
ever??? Please say it isn't true!

North Carolina

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> LG baby - I think you will be better off if you search the archives and read 
> the art of irony as expounded by Robin, 'cause seriously your lame, retarded 
> attempt at irony is pretty pathetic.
> 
> Where did you say you were from again - South or North Carolina? (Oh God - I 
> beg you, please let it be NC).
> 
> 
> On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, laughinggull108  
> wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on the 
> > > same page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are 
> > > totally clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I think 
> > > she will be a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of 
> > > neuroscience soon !!!
> > > 
> > 
> > (LJB in full prostrate e-position with e-hands touching His Holiness' 
> > e-feet) If I may humbly offer a word of advice Your Worshipfulness? 
> > (Permission granted by an e-tap to the e-head) Don't make the devotee into 
> > the Devoted; it is too much of a burden for one to bare and I am unworthy. 
> > (An e-nod of His e-head) And don't be afraid to say what You really think. 
> > (E-eyes widen with understanding as LJB awkwardly backs away remaining in 
> > full prostrate e-position)
> > 
> > > On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108  
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Curtis & Ann,
> > > > 
> > > > I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so rational, 
> > > > so calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so everthing. I 
> > > > hope all conversations here aspire to this level. Thank you.
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one 
> > > > > level it seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone 
> > > > > past that into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some 
> > > > > of what that territory is below:
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
> > > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him.>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of 
> > > > > > people attacking him personally. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  > > > > > and quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, 
> > > > > > but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others.>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that 
> > > > > > happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > < If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a 
> > > > > > different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very 
> > > > > > rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or 
> > > > > > question his position he will take that as a personal attack or as 
> > > > > > a sign of boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on 
> > > > > > the part of that person.>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with the 
> > > > > > predictable "Barry is bad" meme that flows freely here. I see more 
> > > > > > actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not 
> > > > > > denying that he both gives as good as he gets and sometime 
> > > > > > initiates the insult cycle as he did with you and Robin. But since 
> > > > > > then the nature of your posts about him have been more insult to 
> > > > > > belief challenging as has Robin's.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Barry aside and generally speaking I think when one challenges 
> > > > > someone it can take many forms. It can come across as insulting, it 
> > > > > can come across as inappropriate or harsh. One can challenge beliefs 
> > > > > by poking at the character of a man. You can expose or reveal 
> > > > > something about someone by using the back door. A conversation 
> > > > > doesn't have to be about how someone feels about Buddhism, for 
> > > > > example, to figure out how Buddhist someone is in their life. Just 
> > > > > like you can walk into someone's house and come to understand, on 
> > > > > some level, m

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Ravi Chivukula]

LG baby - I think you will be better off if you search the archives and read 
the art of irony as expounded by Robin, 'cause seriously your lame, retarded 
attempt at irony is pretty pathetic.

Where did you say you were from again - South or North Carolina? (Oh God - I 
beg you, please let it be NC).


On Mar 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, laughinggull108  wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on the same 
> > page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are totally 
> > clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I think she will 
> > be a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of neuroscience soon 
> > !!!
> > 
> 
> (LJB in full prostrate e-position with e-hands touching His Holiness' e-feet) 
> If I may humbly offer a word of advice Your Worshipfulness? (Permission 
> granted by an e-tap to the e-head) Don't make the devotee into the Devoted; 
> it is too much of a burden for one to bare and I am unworthy. (An e-nod of 
> His e-head) And don't be afraid to say what You really think. (E-eyes widen 
> with understanding as LJB awkwardly backs away remaining in full prostrate 
> e-position)
> 
> > On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Curtis & Ann,
> > > 
> > > I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so rational, 
> > > so calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so everthing. I hope 
> > > all conversations here aspire to this level. Thank you.
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one level 
> > > > it seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone past 
> > > > that into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some of what 
> > > > that territory is below:
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
> > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him.>
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of 
> > > > > people attacking him personally. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >  > > > > and quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, 
> > > > > but ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others.>
> > > > > 
> > > > > He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that 
> > > > > happened. ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.)
> > > > > 
> > > > > < If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a different 
> > > > > viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid 
> > > > > beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question 
> > > > > his position he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of 
> > > > > boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of 
> > > > > that person.>
> > > > > 
> > > > > I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with the 
> > > > > predictable "Barry is bad" meme that flows freely here. I see more 
> > > > > actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not 
> > > > > denying that he both gives as good as he gets and sometime initiates 
> > > > > the insult cycle as he did with you and Robin. But since then the 
> > > > > nature of your posts about him have been more insult to belief 
> > > > > challenging as has Robin's.
> > > > 
> > > > Barry aside and generally speaking I think when one challenges someone 
> > > > it can take many forms. It can come across as insulting, it can come 
> > > > across as inappropriate or harsh. One can challenge beliefs by poking 
> > > > at the character of a man. You can expose or reveal something about 
> > > > someone by using the back door. A conversation doesn't have to be about 
> > > > how someone feels about Buddhism, for example, to figure out how 
> > > > Buddhist someone is in their life. Just like you can walk into 
> > > > someone's house and come to understand, on some level, many aspects of 
> > > > their personality, their priorities, their tastes, what is valued and 
> > > > what isn't. Everything about what we do and wear and eat and read and 
> > > > watch tell the world about us. So my point is, you don't have to talk 
> > > > about a subject directly to come to understand how someone thinks about 
> > > > that subject. Granted, it can be the most direct way but words are easy 
> > > > to come by and actions and reactions under certain condit

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[laughinggull108]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on the same 
> page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are totally 
> clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I think she will be 
> a fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of neuroscience soon !!!
> 

(LJB in full prostrate e-position with e-hands touching His Holiness' e-feet) 
If I may humbly offer a word of advice Your Worshipfulness? (Permission granted 
by an e-tap to the e-head) Don't make the devotee into the Devoted; it is too 
much of a burden for one to bare and I am unworthy. (An e-nod of His e-head) 
And don't be afraid to say what You really think. (E-eyes widen with 
understanding as LJB awkwardly backs away remaining in full prostrate 
e-position)

> On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108  wrote:
> 
> > Curtis & Ann,
> > 
> > I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so rational, so 
> > calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so everthing. I hope all 
> > conversations here aspire to this level. Thank you.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one level it 
> > > seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone past that 
> > > into more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some of what that 
> > > territory is below:
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him.>
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of 
> > > > people attacking him personally. 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  > > > quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but 
> > > > ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others.>
> > > > 
> > > > He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that happened. 
> > > > ( His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.)
> > > > 
> > > > < If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a different 
> > > > viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid beliefs 
> > > > or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question his position 
> > > > he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of boringness, 
> > > > cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person.>
> > > > 
> > > > I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with the 
> > > > predictable "Barry is bad" meme that flows freely here. I see more 
> > > > actual personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not 
> > > > denying that he both gives as good as he gets and sometime initiates 
> > > > the insult cycle as he did with you and Robin. But since then the 
> > > > nature of your posts about him have been more insult to belief 
> > > > challenging as has Robin's.
> > > 
> > > Barry aside and generally speaking I think when one challenges someone it 
> > > can take many forms. It can come across as insulting, it can come across 
> > > as inappropriate or harsh. One can challenge beliefs by poking at the 
> > > character of a man. You can expose or reveal something about someone by 
> > > using the back door. A conversation doesn't have to be about how someone 
> > > feels about Buddhism, for example, to figure out how Buddhist someone is 
> > > in their life. Just like you can walk into someone's house and come to 
> > > understand, on some level, many aspects of their personality, their 
> > > priorities, their tastes, what is valued and what isn't. Everything about 
> > > what we do and wear and eat and read and watch tell the world about us. 
> > > So my point is, you don't have to talk about a subject directly to come 
> > > to understand how someone thinks about that subject. Granted, it can be 
> > > the most direct way but words are easy to come by and actions and 
> > > reactions under certain conditions can tell us much about another's 
> > > beliefs. (I am trying not to talk specifically about Barry here and it 
> > > may be coming out a bit unclear. I hope you understand what I am trying 
> > > to say.)
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Barry is never vulnerable on this forum. Ever.>
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't 
> > > > > > like you right off. So you only see the version of Barry that 
> > > > > > applie

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Ravi Chivukula]

Dear LG - you are awesome, your brilliance shines through. I am on the same 
page as you, I think Ann loves this exchange where her doubts are totally 
clarified by the impartial, disinterested POV of Curtis. I think she will be a 
fan of Curtis's belief in epistemological purity of neuroscience soon !!!

On Mar 25, 2013, at 6:00 AM, laughinggull108  wrote:

> Curtis & Ann,
> 
> I just wanted to say that I'm *lovin'* this conversation...so rational, so 
> calm, so from the heart, so real, so intelligent, so everthing. I hope all 
> conversations here aspire to this level. Thank you.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> >
> > Hey Curtis, thanks for this comprehensive reply. Although on one level it 
> > seems to be all about Barry it isn't really and it has gone past that into 
> > more interesting territory. I'd like to touch on some of what that 
> > territory is below:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. 
> > > > 
> > > > Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him.>
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of 
> > > people attacking him personally. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  > > quite simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but 
> > > ultimately he dislikes personal challenge coming from others.>
> > > 
> > > He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that happened. ( 
> > > His objection to my use of dislike here is noted.)
> > > 
> > > < If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a different 
> > > viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid beliefs 
> > > or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question his position 
> > > he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of boringness, 
> > > cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person.>
> > > 
> > > I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with the 
> > > predictable "Barry is bad" meme that flows freely here. I see more actual 
> > > personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not denying that 
> > > he both gives as good as he gets and sometime initiates the insult cycle 
> > > as he did with you and Robin. But since then the nature of your posts 
> > > about him have been more insult to belief challenging as has Robin's.
> > 
> > Barry aside and generally speaking I think when one challenges someone it 
> > can take many forms. It can come across as insulting, it can come across as 
> > inappropriate or harsh. One can challenge beliefs by poking at the 
> > character of a man. You can expose or reveal something about someone by 
> > using the back door. A conversation doesn't have to be about how someone 
> > feels about Buddhism, for example, to figure out how Buddhist someone is in 
> > their life. Just like you can walk into someone's house and come to 
> > understand, on some level, many aspects of their personality, their 
> > priorities, their tastes, what is valued and what isn't. Everything about 
> > what we do and wear and eat and read and watch tell the world about us. So 
> > my point is, you don't have to talk about a subject directly to come to 
> > understand how someone thinks about that subject. Granted, it can be the 
> > most direct way but words are easy to come by and actions and reactions 
> > under certain conditions can tell us much about another's beliefs. (I am 
> > trying not to talk specifically about Barry here and it may be coming out a 
> > bit unclear. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.)
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. 
> > > > 
> > > > Barry is never vulnerable on this forum. Ever.>
> > > > 
> > > > > Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't 
> > > > > like you right off. So you only see the version of Barry that applies 
> > > > > to you, a person he does not respect.
> > > > 
> > > > Barry doesn't begin to have the tools to "deal" with Robin. He is so 
> > > > far out of his depth, his comfort zone his perception of what is 
> > > > unknown or possible that to actually interact on even the most 
> > > > superficial level with Robin would require something Barry simply does 
> > > > not possess or refuses to acknowledge. It is kind of like asking a seal 
> > > > to run the 100m dash in 10 seconds on dry land. Not possible.>
> > > 
> > > I guess we don't hold the same lofty view of Robin's intellect. 
> > 
> > I don't hold a lofty view of Robin's intellect. I think he sees the world 
> > in a different way than I see it. I am open to figurin

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Share Long]

Surely you mean sugar maples rather than birches smiley face

hugs




 From: Ravi Chivukula 
To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com"  
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
 

  
Oh dear Aunt Share, this is not you - the other Share that's destroying your 
innocent purity. That neurotic b$tch up in Fairfield that's a sweet talking 
b$tch that hides her delusions behind inane platitudes, visiting every healer, 
Guru, light worker. She who levels the playing field a la Curtis by her - we 
all have positive and negative qualities BS. She, like many neurotic birches 
that I have seen around Amma's cult that accuse men of psychological rape.

Yes a little grumpy dear Auntie but you have made me feel better.

I love you.

Ravi



On Mar 25, 2013, at 7:55 AM, Share Long  wrote:


  
>dear Ravi, pray tell, who is this other Share and how dare she join FFL!  
>Though I did not break into applause of any kind, I have been enjoying the 
>posts of Curtis.  And those of just about everybody else.  As probably just 
>about everybody else has been enjoying mine (-:  
>
>But why are you picking on Marek?  Are you becoming a grumpy boots down there 
>in sunny San Diego?  
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Ravi Chivukula 
>To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:47 PM
>Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
> 
>
>  
>Oh Curtis - I have to say this is a really beautiful slick presentation which 
>will make the Steves and Shares of this list break into a spontaneous applause.
>
>
>However remember the old adage - you can't deceive everyone every time.
>
>
>The magic you weave with your tricks, sleight of hand deceptions is a sight to 
>behold.
>
>
>You start off with leveling the play field on FFL for your pal Barry - all the 
>voices on FFL are equaled to a robotic set of POV's devoid of any personal 
>subjectivity of individual posters, devoid of any biases of posters creeping 
>into their posts.
>
>
>It's all POV's - the voice of Ann is no different from Barry, the posts of 
>Emily no different from azgrey.
>
>
>And you Curtis are this supremely disinterested, impartial poster who is 
>constantly adjusting his POV based on other's POV's.
>
>
>But wait, what do we have here?
>
>
>Well Barry has likes and dislikes as anyone else. Oh you go further - he gives 
>it back good to people who give the poor guy a hard time.
>
>
>And then Judy is someone who directs her toxic energy towards a stranger (you 
>!!) on an internet forum. Robin is an insincere, condescending fool who 
>insults others.
>
>
>Oh boy your theory has completely broken down here.
>
>
>His Holiness is now no impartial, disinterested poster - he is delivering his 
>judgement with impunity.
>
>
>Curtis - you seem to really crave for adulation and praise from your pack of 
>males. It is so perverse and juvenile - this male pack mentality can be 
>forgiven in the teenagers of Steubenville not a bunch of 60 year old's who 
>claim to be philosophers, lawyers, educators, artists.
>
>
>You and Marek are blind to this male pack mentality that is so eager to makeup 
>for the flaws of your pack - the Barry's and azgrey's and their vile filth on 
>FFL - disgusting and pitiful. Your dishonesty and deviousness is sickening.
>
>On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:48 PM, curtisdeltablues  
>wrote:
>
> 
>>  
>>--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>>>  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
>>> > wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. 
>>> 
>>> Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him.>
>>
>>
I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of people 
attacking him personally. 
>>
>>
>>>simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he 
>>dislikes personal challenge coming from others.>
>>
>>
He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that happened.  ( His 
objection to my use of dislike here is noted.)
>>
>>
>>< If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a different 
>>viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid beliefs or 
>>one that requires him to retract, apologize or question his position he will 
>>take that as a personal attack or

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[laughinggull108]

'Twould appear that a literary monster has been awakened. No, make that *two* 
literary monsters, or *three* if you count dumbass, md.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> To:  Awoe, as Buck in Dome calls her
> Dear Missy Ann, I beg of you, please refrain from such undiluted praise of 
> the writing of my client Share F. Long.  I'll have you know that I have 
> worked long and hard, steeped in the adoration I bestow on all my clients, 
> attempting to promote her to Hollywood's A list of actresses.  If you 
> continue with such lavish blandishments of her forays into this other avenue 
> of artistic endeavor, she may give in to temptation and forego her acting 
> career in favor or favour of this more literary pursuit.  Think Carrie 
> Fisher.
> 
> OTOH, dear lady, I believe you yourself could have a wonderful career here in 
> Hollywood offering workshops in the Art of the Left Handed Compliment.  Or 
> the Art of the Backhanded Compliment.  I could have my people do some 
> research on those 2 different brandings and see which might work better.  As 
> much as I love Tinseltown, I do realize my fellow City of Angels inhabitants 
> can be a bit jaded about such.
> 
> And I do realize tee hee that my dear Missy Share might be the first in line 
> to take your workshop.
> Your humble servant,
> Wilbur Farnsworpy Tigglewud III
> 
> PS  If we ever become closer please feel free to call me as my friends do:  
> Tiggy 3.  But please, no monogrammed ascots, riding crops or poop scoopers 
> for me.  Someday I will explain all.
> 
> 
> 
> ____
>  From: Ann 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 8:59 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
>  
> 
>   
> 
> The post Share made the other day from her "agent" declining Share's bit part 
> in the MJ remake of The Lord of the Rings. That didn't even sound at all like 
> Share and I LOVED it.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> To:  Awoe, as Buck in Dome calls her
> Dear Missy Ann, I beg of you, please refrain from such undiluted praise of 
> the writing of my client Share F. Long.  I'll have you know that I have 
> worked long and hard, steeped in the adoration I bestow on all my clients, 
> attempting to promote her to Hollywood's A list of actresses.  If you 
> continue with such lavish blandishments of her forays into this other avenue 
> of artistic endeavor, she may give in to temptation and forego her acting 
> career in favor or favour of this more literary pursuit.  Think Carrie 
> Fisher.
> 
> OTOH, dear lady, I believe you yourself could have a wonderful career here in 
> Hollywood offering workshops in the Art of the Left Handed Compliment.  Or 
> the Art of the Backhanded Compliment.  I could have my people do some 
> research on those 2 different brandings and see which might work better.  As 
> much as I love Tinseltown, I do realize my fellow City of Angels inhabitants 
> can be a bit jaded about such.
> 
> And I do realize tee hee that my dear Missy Share might be the first in line 
> to take your workshop.
> Your humble servant,
> Wilbur Farnsworpy Tigglewud III
> 
> PS  If we ever become closer please feel free to call me as my friends do:  
> Tiggy 3.  But please, no monogrammed ascots, riding crops or poop scoopers 
> for me.  Someday I will explain all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBz7Rg_15lU
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Ann 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 8:59 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
>  
> 
>   
> 
> The post Share made the other day from her "agent" declining Share's bit part 
> in the MJ remake of The Lord of the Rings. That didn't even sound at all like 
> Share and I LOVED it.
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Ravi Chivukula]

Oh dear Aunt Share, this is not you - the other Share that's destroying your 
innocent purity. That neurotic b$tch up in Fairfield that's a sweet talking 
b$tch that hides her delusions behind inane platitudes, visiting every healer, 
Guru, light worker. She who levels the playing field a la Curtis by her - we 
all have positive and negative qualities BS. She, like many neurotic birches 
that I have seen around Amma's cult that accuse men of psychological rape.

Yes a little grumpy dear Auntie but you have made me feel better.

I love you.

Ravi


On Mar 25, 2013, at 7:55 AM, Share Long  wrote:

> dear Ravi, pray tell, who is this other Share and how dare she join FFL!  
> Though I did not break into applause of any kind, I have been enjoying the 
> posts of Curtis.  And those of just about everybody else.  As probably just 
> about everybody else has been enjoying mine (-:  
> But why are you picking on Marek?  Are you becoming a grumpy boots down there 
> in sunny San Diego?  
> 
> From: Ravi Chivukula 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
> 
>  
> Oh Curtis - I have to say this is a really beautiful slick presentation which 
> will make the Steves and Shares of this list break into a spontaneous 
> applause.
> 
> However remember the old adage - you can't deceive everyone every time.
> 
> The magic you weave with your tricks, sleight of hand deceptions is a sight 
> to behold.
> 
> You start off with leveling the play field on FFL for your pal Barry - all 
> the voices on FFL are equaled to a robotic set of POV's devoid of any 
> personal subjectivity of individual posters, devoid of any biases of posters 
> creeping into their posts.
> 
> It's all POV's - the voice of Ann is no different from Barry, the posts of 
> Emily no different from azgrey.
> 
> And you Curtis are this supremely disinterested, impartial poster who is 
> constantly adjusting his POV based on other's POV's.
> 
> But wait, what do we have here?
> 
> Well Barry has likes and dislikes as anyone else. Oh you go further - he 
> gives it back good to people who give the poor guy a hard time.
> 
> And then Judy is someone who directs her toxic energy towards a stranger (you 
> !!) on an internet forum. Robin is an insincere, condescending fool who 
> insults others.
> 
> Oh boy your theory has completely broken down here.
> 
> His Holiness is now no impartial, disinterested poster - he is delivering his 
> judgement with impunity.
> 
> Curtis - you seem to really crave for adulation and praise from your pack of 
> males. It is so perverse and juvenile - this male pack mentality can be 
> forgiven in the teenagers of Steubenville not a bunch of 60 year old's who 
> claim to be philosophers, lawyers, educators, artists.
> 
> You and Marek are blind to this male pack mentality that is so eager to 
> makeup for the flaws of your pack - the Barry's and azgrey's and their vile 
> filth on FFL - disgusting and pitiful. Your dishonesty and deviousness is 
> sickening.
> 
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:48 PM, curtisdeltablues 
>  wrote:
>  
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> 
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. 
> > 
> > Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him.>
> 
> I don't see a lot of people not agreeing with Barry. I see a lot of people 
> attacking him personally. 
> 
>  simple. They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he 
> dislikes personal challenge coming from others.>
> 
> He expressed his dislike for you and Robin before any of that happened. ( His 
> objection to my use of dislike here is noted.)
> 
> 
> < If that challenge takes the form of anything resembling a different 
> viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his very rigid beliefs or 
> one that requires him to retract, apologize or question his position he will 
> take that as a personal attack or as a sign of boringness, cuntness, small 
> mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person.>
> 
> I might have to see an example of this. I am more familiar with the 
> predictable "Barry is bad" meme that flows freely here.  I see more actual 
> personal attacks than a challenge to beliefs. And I am not denying that he 
> both gives as good as he gets and sometime initiates the insult cy

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Share Long]

To:  Awoe, as Buck in Dome calls her
Dear Missy Ann, I beg of you, please refrain from such undiluted praise of the 
writing of my client Share F. Long.  I'll have you know that I have worked long 
and hard, steeped in the adoration I bestow on all my clients, attempting to 
promote her to Hollywood's A list of actresses.  If you continue with such 
lavish blandishments of her forays into this other avenue of artistic endeavor, 
she may give in to temptation and forego her acting career in favor or favour 
of this more literary pursuit.  Think Carrie Fisher.

OTOH, dear lady, I believe you yourself could have a wonderful career here in 
Hollywood offering workshops in the Art of the Left Handed Compliment.  Or the 
Art of the Backhanded Compliment.  I could have my people do some research on 
those 2 different brandings and see which might work better.  As much as I love 
Tinseltown, I do realize my fellow City of Angels inhabitants can be a bit 
jaded about such.

And I do realize tee hee that my dear Missy Share might be the first in line to 
take your workshop.
Your humble servant,
Wilbur Farnsworpy Tigglewud III

PS  If we ever become closer please feel free to call me as my friends do:  
Tiggy 3.  But please, no monogrammed ascots, riding crops or poop scoopers for 
me.  Someday I will explain all.




 From: Ann 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 8:59 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
 

  

The post Share made the other day from her "agent" declining Share's bit part 
in the MJ remake of The Lord of the Rings. That didn't even sound at all like 
Share and I LOVED it. 


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[seventhray27]

HeyJim,
I saw Argo with wife and daughter.  Wife enjoyed it so much she wanted
to see it again.  I enjoyed it enough.  I couldn't help but reflect on
all the embellishments, (that's Hollywood, so no problem), and the buzz
that Hollywood loves nothing more than a movie about itself, hence the
Best Pic Award.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... 
wrote:
>
> OK - In other memory news of mine, I saw Argo, and loved it - great
all 'round pic and amazing story. Also finally saw Tower Heist which is
a fun one. And Baby Mama, also enjoyable.
>
> Just watched this week's The Amazing Race, which was different this
time, because during the last show, one of the monuments featured in
Hanoi was a wrecked B-52, shot down during the American War in Vietnam.
This show was preceded by an apology regarding US vets, alluding to the
earlier footage. I figure we were trying to kill them, to continue the
momentum of imperialism inherited from the French, and they defended
themselves, on their soil. What is the problem? Your thoughts?
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Steve, are you warning me, correcting me, pointing out something
that
> > I don't see? There is nothing untoward about pointing out the phony
> > identities around here, and what masquerades for spiritual inquiry,
but
> > is in reality, just that, a masquerade. I enjoy making such
distinctions
> > on here, and directly. It is intentionally disruptive. Not for its
own
> > sake, but to allow other contributions here also. Seems to be
> > working.:-)
> > Wel, by all means, carry on, if you feel that it is working!  That's
not
> > quite my take, but who am I.  I was just pointing out that you've
pretty
> > much been on restricted diet for a couple weeks now, and maybe you
want
> > to try to add a little variety.
> >
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I gotta say Jim, as LG said previously, you've got a penchant
for
> > > > writing, but you seem stuck in petty feedback loop that sort of
> > > > underscores what those in the "other camp' have to say about
you.
> > Not
> > > > that you care of course. It's a tiny audience here, but one
could
> > > > easily interpret it that you can't be bothered (or are able) to
> > respond
> > > > in a more substantive manner. Your choice. Much easier to say,
so
> > and
> > > > so, is full of shit. Period, final, end of discussion. That is
where
> > I
> > > > think you are.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Curtis. since you are, like Barry, humor challenged when it is
> > > > directed at you, once again I will clarify my take on the two of
> > you:
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know where you and your boyfriend get off on trying to
> > lecture
> > > > anybody, on anything, here on FFL. Him with his endless flogging
of
> > dead
> > > > horses, and you always appearing sparkly and preachy, like a
young
> > > > republican debutante, or something.
> > > > >
> > > > > You both come across as a couple of square old biddies, about
as
> > cool
> > > > as an old puddle, the neighborhood busy-bodies, ready to raise
the
> > alarm
> > > > at the first sign of challenge.
> > > > >
> > > > > For that, I refer to you as a less than charming couple, and
the
> > image
> > > > persists. Tea?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My, my, so *bitchy* again, today, Ethel! Bitch, bitch,
bitch. No
> > > > kiss-kiss and make up? I am sorry you and Fred had a fight, but
> > that's
> > > > really not *my* problem. Now, please clutch your
self-righteousness
> > ever
> > > > closer to your man boobs, and go suck an ice cream cone. You'll
feel
> > > > better.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Love, Your Doctor Dumbass
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@
> > 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The only thing unique about you is your lack of
self
> > > > awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with
your
> > > > falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your
number,
> > > > except for your girlfriend, Curtis.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So let just understand how you are intending this as
an
> > > > insult to me Jim. Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay
> > > > relationship and that this would somehow be an insult because of
> > your
> > > > negative views of gay people?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though
I
> > have
> > > > sometimes had negative views of people that happened to be gay.
My
> > best
> > > > friend f

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
> >
> > You always have created some hope Curtis - regardless of what Judy, Robin
> > and I myself have said in the past. I am always open to see if there's
> > another Curtis that would show up. That you could somehow come out of this
> > perverse, juvenile need for adulation from your pack and that you could
> > stand up on your own, willing to take a strong stand against Barry, azgrey,
> > that you could be somehow a man that could be appreciated for his integrity.
> 
> 
> You are forgetting that Curtis is (insisting he's) an ARTIST Ravi, he's a 
> free soul, no need for him to show any consistency :-)
>

/me just remembered why he missed fairfieldlife so much: exchanges like this...

L

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  wrote:
>
> You always have created some hope Curtis - regardless of what Judy, Robin
> and I myself have said in the past. I am always open to see if there's
> another Curtis that would show up. That you could somehow come out of this
> perverse, juvenile need for adulation from your pack and that you could
> stand up on your own, willing to take a strong stand against Barry, azgrey,
> that you could be somehow a man that could be appreciated for his integrity.


You are forgetting that Curtis is (insisting he's) an ARTIST Ravi, he's a free 
soul, no need for him to show any consistency :-)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Ravi Chivukula]

On Mar 24, 2013, at 10:50 PM, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:

> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:19 PM, curtisdeltablues <
> > curtisdeltablues@...> wrote:
> > 
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > That you could somehow come out of this
> > > > perverse, juvenile need for adulation from your pack and that you could
> > > > stand up on your own, willing to take a strong stand against Barry,
> > > azgrey,
> > > > that you could be somehow a man that could be appreciated for his
> > > integrity.
> > >
> > > Yes I see now. If I exchange the approval of the "pack" that includes
> > > Barry and inexplicably, Azgrey, for the pack that includes Ravi and Judy
> > > and Robin, I can be appreciated for my integrity in crazy town. But with
> > > Judy as Aunt Bea and you as the hapless Barny Fife and Robin as Andy the
> > > sheriff, isn't the only other good part Otis the Drunk? I really don't 
> > > want
> > > to be that obsequious hand wringing barber guy.
> > >
> > 
> > Cute. What do you say - a disinterested, impartial POV or an incoherent
> > tirade :-).
> 
> I am never disinterested Ravi. You know that. Nor would I claim Impartiality, 
> that is a myth. Tirade? If I wanted that much drama I would muster something 
> better than this. Andy of Mayberry nonsense. Don't you think?
> 

This is your whole shtick here - so sorry doesn't cut it, that you don't 
posture yourself as disinterested and impartial. You are contradicting 
everything you have written ever and repeated again the last two days - master 
of deception under your His Holiness persona. Perhaps something contemporary 
would help my puzzled mind understand your brilliance and wisdom?

> 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You always have created some hope Curtis - regardless of what Judy, 
> > > > Robin
> > > > and I myself have said in the past. I am always open to see if there's
> > > > another Curtis that would show up. That you could somehow come out of
> > > this
> > > > perverse, juvenile need for adulation from your pack and that you could
> > > > stand up on your own, willing to take a strong stand against Barry,
> > > azgrey,
> > > > that you could be somehow a man that could be appreciated for his
> > > integrity.
> > > >
> > > > No luck - the same old routine, same old moves that you have repeated 
> > > > the
> > > > last couple of days in response to Robin's post. Sad.
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Ravi Chivukula  > > ...>wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Funny Curtis - same old bullshit moves, regardless of your clever
> > > comments
> > > > > your fucking moves don't work on me - OK?
> > > > >
> > > > > No longer am I another one of the robotic POV's on FFL that you could
> > > > > impartially observe and choose to accept or reject and finetune your
> > > POV
> > > > > huh?
> > > > >
> > > > > Give me a fucking break and try your moves on some of the suckers
> > > around
> > > > > here.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:32 PM, curtisdeltablues <
> > > > > curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> **
> > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Intellectual re-compounding. You are FFL's Zelig.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Like a Philippine lounge singer you ALMOST sound like Celine Dione.
> > > > >> Really, almost.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula  > > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I like this Curtis - the fact that you don't try to disassemble my
> > > post
> > > > >> > using your patented context shifting moves and with just one fell
> > > swoop
> > > > >> > dismiss my post as an "incoherent tirade" makes me happy.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Good job Ravi - you have hit the mark :-). Ravi don't shoot no
> > > blanks.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:14 PM, curtisdeltablues <
> > > > >> > curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > **
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Robin will you PLEZE pat Ravi on the head. He is dying for
> > > your
> > > > >> > > approval, and will not let up on these incoherent tirades till 
> > > > >> > > you
> > > > >> make him
> > > > >> > > a deputy in crazy town or something. Give him a badge or deputize
> > > > >> him, so
> > > > >> > > he can be a happy little Barney Fife for your Andy.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > (Sorry for the Amero-centric references but the audience I am
> > > playing
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > knows them.)
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > \
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula
> > >  > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Oh Curtis - I have to say this is a really beautiful slick
> > > > >> presentation
> > > > >> > > > which will make the Steves and Shares of this list break into a
> > > > >> > > spontaneous
> > > > >> > > > applause.
> > > > >

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Ravi Chivukula]

Awesome work - snipping out everything irrelevant and letting the pristine, 
purity of you guys's impartial, disinterested POV's shine through. Good job 
Barry !!!


On Mar 24, 2013, at 11:04 PM, turquoiseb  wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > Robin will you PLEZE pat Ravi on the head. He 
> > is dying for your approval, and will not let up on 
> > these incoherent tirades till you make him a deputy 
> > in crazy town or something. Give him a badge or 
> > deputize him, so he can be a happy little Barney 
> > Fife for your Andy.
> > 
> > (Sorry for the Amero-centric references but the 
> > audience I am playing to knows them.)
> 
> Thanks for the kind (and right on) words, Curtis,
> and for nailing this situation. The only thing I'd
> say is that I don't think you go far enough. It's
> not just Robin that Ravi is desperate for a pat 
> the head from, or just Ravi that is motivated by
> that. It's the whole lot of them, who seem to get
> off these days ONLY on being stroked (yes, in that
> sense, too) by the other members of the Cultist
> Clique, especially the person they're ALL playing
> to, who isn't even here this week. 
> 
> I don't know about you, but to me it makes the 
> place even more boring than usual. 
> 
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Since sacrilege is still possible (after the death of God) I must believe the 
> Holy Trinity became someone else.
> 
> You do make me religious, Curtis; violently and beautifully so.
> 
> I love the intensification of the meaning of everything when I read a post 
> like this one.
> 
> It makes it seem as if each moment still counts for something.
> 
> I just want to believe in truth as much as you do--since you make use of it 
> more creatively than I can.
> 
> I love the sweet cunning of your mind, Curtis.
> 
> When you stumble, I will listen to Christ suddenly become confused.
> 

I'm pretty sure that obsession is bad for the soul. I'd worry about that.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> Robin will you PLEZE pat Ravi on the head.  He 
> is dying for your approval, and will not let up on 
> these incoherent tirades till you make him a deputy 
> in crazy town or something.  Give him a badge or 
> deputize him, so he can be a happy little Barney 
> Fife for your Andy.
> 
> (Sorry for the Amero-centric references but the 
> audience I am playing to knows them.)

Thanks for the kind (and right on) words, Curtis,
and for nailing this situation. The only thing I'd
say is that I don't think you go far enough. It's
not just Robin that Ravi is desperate for a pat 
the head from, or just Ravi that is motivated by
that. It's the whole lot of them, who seem to get
off these days ONLY on being stroked (yes, in that
sense, too) by the other members of the Cultist
Clique, especially the person they're ALL playing
to, who isn't even here this week. 

I don't know about you, but to me it makes the 
place even more boring than usual. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[doctordumbass]

OK - In other memory news of mine, I saw Argo, and loved it - great all 'round 
pic and amazing story. Also finally saw Tower Heist which is a fun one. And 
Baby Mama, also enjoyable. 

Just watched this week's The Amazing Race, which was different this time, 
because during the last show, one of the monuments featured in Hanoi was a 
wrecked B-52, shot down during the American War in Vietnam. This show was 
preceded by an apology regarding US vets, alluding to the earlier footage. I 
figure we were trying to kill them, to continue the momentum of imperialism 
inherited from the French, and they defended themselves, on their soil. What is 
the problem? Your thoughts? 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ 
> wrote:
> >
> > Steve, are you warning me, correcting me, pointing out something that
> I don't see? There is nothing untoward about pointing out the phony
> identities around here, and what masquerades for spiritual inquiry, but
> is in reality, just that, a masquerade. I enjoy making such distinctions
> on here, and directly. It is intentionally disruptive. Not for its own
> sake, but to allow other contributions here also. Seems to be
> working.:-)
> Wel, by all means, carry on, if you feel that it is working!  That's not
> quite my take, but who am I.  I was just pointing out that you've pretty
> much been on restricted diet for a couple weeks now, and maybe you want
> to try to add a little variety.
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I gotta say Jim, as LG said previously, you've got a penchant for
> > > writing, but you seem stuck in petty feedback loop that sort of
> > > underscores what those in the "other camp' have to say about you.
> Not
> > > that you care of course. It's a tiny audience here, but one could
> > > easily interpret it that you can't be bothered (or are able) to
> respond
> > > in a more substantive manner. Your choice. Much easier to say, so
> and
> > > so, is full of shit. Period, final, end of discussion. That is where
> I
> > > think you are.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Curtis. since you are, like Barry, humor challenged when it is
> > > directed at you, once again I will clarify my take on the two of
> you:
> > > >
> > > > I don't know where you and your boyfriend get off on trying to
> lecture
> > > anybody, on anything, here on FFL. Him with his endless flogging of
> dead
> > > horses, and you always appearing sparkly and preachy, like a young
> > > republican debutante, or something.
> > > >
> > > > You both come across as a couple of square old biddies, about as
> cool
> > > as an old puddle, the neighborhood busy-bodies, ready to raise the
> alarm
> > > at the first sign of challenge.
> > > >
> > > > For that, I refer to you as a less than charming couple, and the
> image
> > > persists. Tea?
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > My, my, so *bitchy* again, today, Ethel! Bitch, bitch, bitch. No
> > > kiss-kiss and make up? I am sorry you and Fred had a fight, but
> that's
> > > really not *my* problem. Now, please clutch your self-righteousness
> ever
> > > closer to your man boobs, and go suck an ice cream cone. You'll feel
> > > better.
> > > > >
> > > > > Love, Your Doctor Dumbass
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@
> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The only thing unique about you is your lack of self
> > > awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your
> > > falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number,
> > > except for your girlfriend, Curtis.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So let just understand how you are intending this as an
> > > insult to me Jim. Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay
> > > relationship and that this would somehow be an insult because of
> your
> > > negative views of gay people?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I
> have
> > > sometimes had negative views of people that happened to be gay. My
> best
> > > friend for 32 years was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my
> younger
> > > brother, RIP. So, fuck you, on assumption #1.>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Me:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have claimed this before and have used it as if it might
> give
> > > you a pass on some very nasty gender based and gay insults. You only
> > > mention him in this context, and include very hostile curses when
> you
> > > invoke him as your defense. Like your claim of enlightenment, there
> is a
> > > very large disconnect between your claim and your behavior.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If it is actually 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... 
wrote:
>
> Steve, are you warning me, correcting me, pointing out something that
I don't see? There is nothing untoward about pointing out the phony
identities around here, and what masquerades for spiritual inquiry, but
is in reality, just that, a masquerade. I enjoy making such distinctions
on here, and directly. It is intentionally disruptive. Not for its own
sake, but to allow other contributions here also. Seems to be
working.:-)
Wel, by all means, carry on, if you feel that it is working!  That's not
quite my take, but who am I.  I was just pointing out that you've pretty
much been on restricted diet for a couple weeks now, and maybe you want
to try to add a little variety.


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
wrote:
> >
> >
> > I gotta say Jim, as LG said previously, you've got a penchant for
> > writing, but you seem stuck in petty feedback loop that sort of
> > underscores what those in the "other camp' have to say about you.
Not
> > that you care of course. It's a tiny audience here, but one could
> > easily interpret it that you can't be bothered (or are able) to
respond
> > in a more substantive manner. Your choice. Much easier to say, so
and
> > so, is full of shit. Period, final, end of discussion. That is where
I
> > think you are.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Curtis. since you are, like Barry, humor challenged when it is
> > directed at you, once again I will clarify my take on the two of
you:
> > >
> > > I don't know where you and your boyfriend get off on trying to
lecture
> > anybody, on anything, here on FFL. Him with his endless flogging of
dead
> > horses, and you always appearing sparkly and preachy, like a young
> > republican debutante, or something.
> > >
> > > You both come across as a couple of square old biddies, about as
cool
> > as an old puddle, the neighborhood busy-bodies, ready to raise the
alarm
> > at the first sign of challenge.
> > >
> > > For that, I refer to you as a less than charming couple, and the
image
> > persists. Tea?
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My, my, so *bitchy* again, today, Ethel! Bitch, bitch, bitch. No
> > kiss-kiss and make up? I am sorry you and Fred had a fight, but
that's
> > really not *my* problem. Now, please clutch your self-righteousness
ever
> > closer to your man boobs, and go suck an ice cream cone. You'll feel
> > better.
> > > >
> > > > Love, Your Doctor Dumbass
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@

> > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The only thing unique about you is your lack of self
> > awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your
> > falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number,
> > except for your girlfriend, Curtis.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So let just understand how you are intending this as an
> > insult to me Jim. Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay
> > relationship and that this would somehow be an insult because of
your
> > negative views of gay people?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I
have
> > sometimes had negative views of people that happened to be gay. My
best
> > friend for 32 years was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my
younger
> > brother, RIP. So, fuck you, on assumption #1.>
> > > > >
> > > > > Me:
> > > > >
> > > > > You have claimed this before and have used it as if it might
give
> > you a pass on some very nasty gender based and gay insults. You only
> > mention him in this context, and include very hostile curses when
you
> > invoke him as your defense. Like your claim of enlightenment, there
is a
> > very large disconnect between your claim and your behavior.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it is actually true it only doubles the idiocy of using sex
and
> > gay references in your putdowns for people who disagree with you or
who
> > you don't like. It is a common theme for your tantrums here, the use
of
> > images of homosexual references as if that is an insult to another
man.
> > It is a consistent theme of how you characterize how Barry and I
relate
> > to each other.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am against that kind of insult. Your get out of
> > homophobia-charge free card has expired. Stop making gay and gender
> > based insults.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy
of
> > contempt because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > **My wife, daughter, and sister-in-law could *easily*, each
> > separately, kick your ass. Turn you into meat. #2 goes down in
flames
> > too.
> > > > >
> > > > > So your proof of your lack of gender issues is to create a
violent
> > imag

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[doctordumbass]

Steve, are you warning me, correcting me, pointing out something that I don't 
see? There is nothing untoward about pointing out the phony identities around 
here, and what masquerades for spiritual inquiry, but is in reality, just that, 
a masquerade. I enjoy making such distinctions on here, and directly. It is 
intentionally disruptive. Not for its own sake, but to allow other 
contributions here also. Seems to be working.:-)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> 
> I gotta say Jim, as LG said previously, you've got a penchant for
> writing, but you seem stuck in petty feedback loop that sort of
> underscores what those in the "other camp' have to say about you.  Not
> that you care of course.  It's a tiny audience here, but one could
> easily interpret it that you can't be bothered (or are able) to respond
> in a more substantive manner.  Your choice. Much easier to say, so and
> so, is full of shit. Period, final, end of discussion.  That is where I
> think you are.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ 
> wrote:
> >
> > Curtis. since you are, like Barry, humor challenged when it is
> directed at you, once again I will clarify my take on the two of you:
> >
> > I don't know where you and your boyfriend get off on trying to lecture
> anybody, on anything, here on FFL. Him with his endless flogging of dead
> horses, and you always appearing sparkly and preachy, like a young
> republican debutante, or something.
> >
> > You both come across as a couple of square old biddies, about as cool
> as an old puddle, the neighborhood busy-bodies, ready to raise the alarm
> at the first sign of challenge.
> >
> > For that, I refer to you as a less than charming couple, and the image
> persists. Tea?
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote:
> > >
> > > My, my, so *bitchy* again, today, Ethel! Bitch, bitch, bitch. No
> kiss-kiss and make up? I am sorry you and Fred had a fight, but that's
> really not *my* problem. Now, please clutch your self-righteousness ever
> closer to your man boobs, and go suck an ice cream cone. You'll feel
> better.
> > >
> > > Love, Your Doctor Dumbass
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ 
> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The only thing unique about you is your lack of self
> awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your
> falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number,
> except for your girlfriend, Curtis.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So let just understand how you are intending this as an
> insult to me Jim. Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay
> relationship and that this would somehow be an insult because of your
> negative views of gay people?
> > > > >
> > > > > **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I have
> sometimes had negative views of people that happened to be gay. My best
> friend for 32 years was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my younger
> brother, RIP. So, fuck you, on assumption #1.>
> > > >
> > > > Me:
> > > >
> > > > You have claimed this before and have used it as if it might give
> you a pass on some very nasty gender based and gay insults. You only
> mention him in this context, and include very hostile curses when you
> invoke him as your defense. Like your claim of enlightenment, there is a
> very large disconnect between your claim and your behavior.
> > > >
> > > > If it is actually true it only doubles the idiocy of using sex and
> gay references in your putdowns for people who disagree with you or who
> you don't like. It is a common theme for your tantrums here, the use of
> images of homosexual references as if that is an insult to another man.
> It is a consistent theme of how you characterize how Barry and I relate
> to each other.
> > > >
> > > > I am against that kind of insult. Your get out of
> homophobia-charge free card has expired. Stop making gay and gender
> based insults.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of
> contempt because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man?
> > > > >
> > > > > **My wife, daughter, and sister-in-law could *easily*, each
> separately, kick your ass. Turn you into meat. #2 goes down in flames
> too.
> > > >
> > > > So your proof of your lack of gender issues is to create a violent
> imaginary scenario where your wife or daughter would engage in a
> physical altercation with a man.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, that was very convincing.
> > > >
> > > > You don't add up dude.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > **Hm...course correction time, Ethel??
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim. You
> are a very unpleasant person underneath the "I am enlightened, no really
> , I am really enlightened, no 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[seventhray27]

I gotta say Jim, as LG said previously, you've got a penchant for
writing, but you seem stuck in petty feedback loop that sort of
underscores what those in the "other camp' have to say about you.  Not
that you care of course.  It's a tiny audience here, but one could
easily interpret it that you can't be bothered (or are able) to respond
in a more substantive manner.  Your choice. Much easier to say, so and
so, is full of shit. Period, final, end of discussion.  That is where I
think you are.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... 
wrote:
>
> Curtis. since you are, like Barry, humor challenged when it is
directed at you, once again I will clarify my take on the two of you:
>
> I don't know where you and your boyfriend get off on trying to lecture
anybody, on anything, here on FFL. Him with his endless flogging of dead
horses, and you always appearing sparkly and preachy, like a young
republican debutante, or something.
>
> You both come across as a couple of square old biddies, about as cool
as an old puddle, the neighborhood busy-bodies, ready to raise the alarm
at the first sign of challenge.
>
> For that, I refer to you as a less than charming couple, and the image
persists. Tea?
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > My, my, so *bitchy* again, today, Ethel! Bitch, bitch, bitch. No
kiss-kiss and make up? I am sorry you and Fred had a fight, but that's
really not *my* problem. Now, please clutch your self-righteousness ever
closer to your man boobs, and go suck an ice cream cone. You'll feel
better.
> >
> > Love, Your Doctor Dumbass
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ 
wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only thing unique about you is your lack of self
awareness. But then, of course you know that. So continue with your
falsehoods and trickery and know that most of us have your number,
except for your girlfriend, Curtis.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So let just understand how you are intending this as an
insult to me Jim. Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay
relationship and that this would somehow be an insult because of your
negative views of gay people?
> > > >
> > > > **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I have
sometimes had negative views of people that happened to be gay. My best
friend for 32 years was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my younger
brother, RIP. So, fuck you, on assumption #1.>
> > >
> > > Me:
> > >
> > > You have claimed this before and have used it as if it might give
you a pass on some very nasty gender based and gay insults. You only
mention him in this context, and include very hostile curses when you
invoke him as your defense. Like your claim of enlightenment, there is a
very large disconnect between your claim and your behavior.
> > >
> > > If it is actually true it only doubles the idiocy of using sex and
gay references in your putdowns for people who disagree with you or who
you don't like. It is a common theme for your tantrums here, the use of
images of homosexual references as if that is an insult to another man.
It is a consistent theme of how you characterize how Barry and I relate
to each other.
> > >
> > > I am against that kind of insult. Your get out of
homophobia-charge free card has expired. Stop making gay and gender
based insults.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of
contempt because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man?
> > > >
> > > > **My wife, daughter, and sister-in-law could *easily*, each
separately, kick your ass. Turn you into meat. #2 goes down in flames
too.
> > >
> > > So your proof of your lack of gender issues is to create a violent
imaginary scenario where your wife or daughter would engage in a
physical altercation with a man.
> > >
> > > Yeah, that was very convincing.
> > >
> > > You don't add up dude.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > **Hm...course correction time, Ethel??
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim. You
are a very unpleasant person underneath the "I am enlightened, no really
, I am really enlightened, no really I am" rap.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Message number one, Ethel: Enlightened people can be very
unpleasant to fools (like you).
> > > > >
> > > > > My reference was to Fred and Ethel, you and Barry. I just
quickly painted the picture, which still draws a chuckle from me. Read
anything at all into it. Then own it, and act on your assumptions. After
that, you will truly know the difference between experience and beliefs.
Or given your's and Fred's track record, probably not. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > PS Fred called me a "meanie". Ain't that a hoot??
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb
 wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroup

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Robin Carlsen]

You make me believe there is a God, Curtis. Your dishonesty is too profound to 
be addressed by anyone else.

On my life I swear you are false in nearly all that you say here, Curtis. 
Knowingly so.

Your inspiration for this, however, is paradoxically your sensitivity to truth. 
Truth is your muse to know how to be so immaculately deceitful.

But this almost makes me religious.

A truly unbelievable performance. 

You are masterful, Curtis.

I am more interested now in what the death experience will be.

I am inspired after this to take my life even more seriously.

This is immensely significant.

I just found the perfect sacrament.

It's all good, then, Curtis.

We will resolve this matter between us someday. I promise you this.

Maybe there is a heaven after all.

My faith has been strengthened by reading this.

Thank you, dear Curtis.

I feel as if I am praying now.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But 
> > > > > then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and 
> > > > > trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your 
> > > > > girlfriend, Curtis. 
> > > > 
> > > > So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me 
> > > > Jim.  Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and 
> > > > that this would somehow be an insult because of your negative views of 
> > > > gay people?
> > 
> > **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I have sometimes 
> > had negative views of people that happened to be gay. My best friend for 32 
> > years was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my younger brother, RIP. So, 
> > fuck you, on assumption #1.>
> 
> Me:
> 
> You have claimed this before and have used it as if it might give you a pass 
> on some very nasty gender based and gay insults.  You only mention him in 
> this context, and include very hostile curses when you invoke him as your 
> defense.  Like your claim of enlightenment, there is a very large disconnect 
> between your claim and your behavior. 
> 
> If it is actually true it only doubles the idiocy of using sex and gay 
> references in your putdowns for people who disagree with you or who you don't 
> like.  It is a common theme for your tantrums here, the use of images of 
> homosexual references as if that is an insult to another man.  It is a 
> consistent theme of how you characterize how Barry and I relate to each 
> other.  
> 
> I am against that kind of insult. Your get out of homophobia-charge free card 
> has expired.  Stop making gay and gender based insults.  
> 
> > 
> > > > Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of contempt 
> > > > because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man?
> > 
> > **My wife, daughter, and sister-in-law could *easily*, each separately, 
> > kick your ass. Turn you into meat. #2 goes down in flames too.
> 
> So your proof of your lack of gender issues is to create a violent imaginary 
> scenario where your wife or daughter would engage in a physical altercation 
> with a man.
> 
> Yeah, that was very convincing.  
> 
> You don't add up dude. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > **Hm...course correction time, Ethel??
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim.  You are a very 
> > > > unpleasant person underneath the "I am enlightened, no really , I am 
> > > > really enlightened, no really I am" rap.
> > > > 
> > > Message number one, Ethel: Enlightened people can be very unpleasant to 
> > > fools (like you). 
> > > 
> > > My reference was to Fred and Ethel, you and Barry. I just quickly painted 
> > > the picture, which still draws a chuckle from me. Read anything at all 
> > > into it. Then own it, and act on your assumptions. After that, you will 
> > > truly know the difference between experience and beliefs. Or given your's 
> > > and Fred's track record, probably not. :-)
> > > 
> > > PS Fred called me a "meanie". Ain't that a hoot?? 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  
> > > > > > > He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he 
> > > > > > > does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack 
> > > > > > > him, but not always. He didn't like you right off.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day
> > > > > > One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force 
> > > > > > myself to plow through his bloviated language. He 
> > > > > > still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting 
> > > > > > Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 
> > > > > > 10 words and realized who it was from the shi

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[doctordumbass]

Curtis. since you are, like Barry, humor challenged when it is directed at you, 
once again I will clarify my take on the two of you:  

I don't know where you and your boyfriend get off on trying to lecture anybody, 
on anything, here on FFL. Him with his endless flogging of dead horses, and you 
always appearing sparkly and preachy, like a young republican debutante, or 
something.

You both come across as a couple of square old biddies, about as cool as an old 
puddle, the neighborhood busy-bodies, ready to raise the  alarm at the first 
sign of challenge. 

For that, I refer to you as a less than charming couple, and the image 
persists. Tea? 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> My, my, so *bitchy* again, today, Ethel! Bitch, bitch, bitch. No kiss-kiss 
> and make up? I am sorry you and Fred had a fight, but that's really not *my* 
> problem. Now, please clutch your self-righteousness ever closer to your man 
> boobs, and go suck an ice cream cone. You'll feel better. 
> 
> Love, Your Doctor Dumbass
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But 
> > > > > > then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and 
> > > > > > trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your 
> > > > > > girlfriend, Curtis. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me 
> > > > > Jim.  Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and 
> > > > > that this would somehow be an insult because of your negative views 
> > > > > of gay people?
> > > 
> > > **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I have sometimes 
> > > had negative views of people that happened to be gay. My best friend for 
> > > 32 years was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my younger brother, RIP. 
> > > So, fuck you, on assumption #1.>
> > 
> > Me:
> > 
> > You have claimed this before and have used it as if it might give you a 
> > pass on some very nasty gender based and gay insults.  You only mention him 
> > in this context, and include very hostile curses when you invoke him as 
> > your defense.  Like your claim of enlightenment, there is a very large 
> > disconnect between your claim and your behavior. 
> > 
> > If it is actually true it only doubles the idiocy of using sex and gay 
> > references in your putdowns for people who disagree with you or who you 
> > don't like.  It is a common theme for your tantrums here, the use of images 
> > of homosexual references as if that is an insult to another man.  It is a 
> > consistent theme of how you characterize how Barry and I relate to each 
> > other.  
> > 
> > I am against that kind of insult. Your get out of homophobia-charge free 
> > card has expired.  Stop making gay and gender based insults.  
> > 
> > > 
> > > > > Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of contempt 
> > > > > because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man?
> > > 
> > > **My wife, daughter, and sister-in-law could *easily*, each separately, 
> > > kick your ass. Turn you into meat. #2 goes down in flames too.
> > 
> > So your proof of your lack of gender issues is to create a violent 
> > imaginary scenario where your wife or daughter would engage in a physical 
> > altercation with a man.
> > 
> > Yeah, that was very convincing.  
> > 
> > You don't add up dude. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > **Hm...course correction time, Ethel??
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim.  You are a 
> > > > > very unpleasant person underneath the "I am enlightened, no really , 
> > > > > I am really enlightened, no really I am" rap.
> > > > > 
> > > > Message number one, Ethel: Enlightened people can be very unpleasant to 
> > > > fools (like you). 
> > > > 
> > > > My reference was to Fred and Ethel, you and Barry. I just quickly 
> > > > painted the picture, which still draws a chuckle from me. Read anything 
> > > > at all into it. Then own it, and act on your assumptions. After that, 
> > > > you will truly know the difference between experience and beliefs. Or 
> > > > given your's and Fred's track record, probably not. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > PS Fred called me a "meanie". Ain't that a hoot?? 
> > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  
> > > > > > > > He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he 
> > > > > > > > does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack 
> > > > > > > > him, but not always. He didn't like you right off.  
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > That's not quite c

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[doctordumbass]

My, my, so *bitchy* again, today, Ethel! Bitch, bitch, bitch. No kiss-kiss and 
make up? I am sorry you and Fred had a fight, but that's really not *my* 
problem. Now, please clutch your self-righteousness ever closer to your man 
boobs, and go suck an ice cream cone. You'll feel better. 

Love, Your Doctor Dumbass

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But 
> > > > > then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and 
> > > > > trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your 
> > > > > girlfriend, Curtis. 
> > > > 
> > > > So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me 
> > > > Jim.  Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and 
> > > > that this would somehow be an insult because of your negative views of 
> > > > gay people?
> > 
> > **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I have sometimes 
> > had negative views of people that happened to be gay. My best friend for 32 
> > years was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my younger brother, RIP. So, 
> > fuck you, on assumption #1.>
> 
> Me:
> 
> You have claimed this before and have used it as if it might give you a pass 
> on some very nasty gender based and gay insults.  You only mention him in 
> this context, and include very hostile curses when you invoke him as your 
> defense.  Like your claim of enlightenment, there is a very large disconnect 
> between your claim and your behavior. 
> 
> If it is actually true it only doubles the idiocy of using sex and gay 
> references in your putdowns for people who disagree with you or who you don't 
> like.  It is a common theme for your tantrums here, the use of images of 
> homosexual references as if that is an insult to another man.  It is a 
> consistent theme of how you characterize how Barry and I relate to each 
> other.  
> 
> I am against that kind of insult. Your get out of homophobia-charge free card 
> has expired.  Stop making gay and gender based insults.  
> 
> > 
> > > > Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of contempt 
> > > > because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man?
> > 
> > **My wife, daughter, and sister-in-law could *easily*, each separately, 
> > kick your ass. Turn you into meat. #2 goes down in flames too.
> 
> So your proof of your lack of gender issues is to create a violent imaginary 
> scenario where your wife or daughter would engage in a physical altercation 
> with a man.
> 
> Yeah, that was very convincing.  
> 
> You don't add up dude. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > **Hm...course correction time, Ethel??
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim.  You are a very 
> > > > unpleasant person underneath the "I am enlightened, no really , I am 
> > > > really enlightened, no really I am" rap.
> > > > 
> > > Message number one, Ethel: Enlightened people can be very unpleasant to 
> > > fools (like you). 
> > > 
> > > My reference was to Fred and Ethel, you and Barry. I just quickly painted 
> > > the picture, which still draws a chuckle from me. Read anything at all 
> > > into it. Then own it, and act on your assumptions. After that, you will 
> > > truly know the difference between experience and beliefs. Or given your's 
> > > and Fred's track record, probably not. :-)
> > > 
> > > PS Fred called me a "meanie". Ain't that a hoot?? 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  
> > > > > > > He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he 
> > > > > > > does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack 
> > > > > > > him, but not always. He didn't like you right off.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day
> > > > > > One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force 
> > > > > > myself to plow through his bloviated language. He 
> > > > > > still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting 
> > > > > > Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 
> > > > > > 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty 
> > > > > > writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm 
> > > > > > the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not
> > > > > > and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to
> > > > > > waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So you only see the version of Barry that applies to 
> > > > > > > you, a person he does not respect.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would
> > > > > > say, "a person he barely acknowledges the existence of." :-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:

> > > > 
> > > > The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But 
> > > > then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and 
> > > > trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your 
> > > > girlfriend, Curtis. 
> > > 
> > > So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me Jim. 
> > >  Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and that this 
> > > would somehow be an insult because of your negative views of gay people?
> 
> **I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I have sometimes had 
> negative views of people that happened to be gay. My best friend for 32 years 
> was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my younger brother, RIP. So, fuck you, 
> on assumption #1.>

Me:

You have claimed this before and have used it as if it might give you a pass on 
some very nasty gender based and gay insults.  You only mention him in this 
context, and include very hostile curses when you invoke him as your defense.  
Like your claim of enlightenment, there is a very large disconnect between your 
claim and your behavior. 

If it is actually true it only doubles the idiocy of using sex and gay 
references in your putdowns for people who disagree with you or who you don't 
like.  It is a common theme for your tantrums here, the use of images of 
homosexual references as if that is an insult to another man.  It is a 
consistent theme of how you characterize how Barry and I relate to each other.  

I am against that kind of insult. Your get out of homophobia-charge free card 
has expired.  Stop making gay and gender based insults.  

> 
> > > Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of contempt 
> > > because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man?
> 
> **My wife, daughter, and sister-in-law could *easily*, each separately, kick 
> your ass. Turn you into meat. #2 goes down in flames too.

So your proof of your lack of gender issues is to create a violent imaginary 
scenario where your wife or daughter would engage in a physical altercation 
with a man.

Yeah, that was very convincing.  

You don't add up dude. 







> 
> **Hm...course correction time, Ethel??
> 
> > > 
> > > In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim.  You are a very 
> > > unpleasant person underneath the "I am enlightened, no really , I am 
> > > really enlightened, no really I am" rap.
> > > 
> > Message number one, Ethel: Enlightened people can be very unpleasant to 
> > fools (like you). 
> > 
> > My reference was to Fred and Ethel, you and Barry. I just quickly painted 
> > the picture, which still draws a chuckle from me. Read anything at all into 
> > it. Then own it, and act on your assumptions. After that, you will truly 
> > know the difference between experience and beliefs. Or given your's and 
> > Fred's track record, probably not. :-)
> > 
> > PS Fred called me a "meanie". Ain't that a hoot?? 
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  
> > > > > > He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he 
> > > > > > does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack 
> > > > > > him, but not always. He didn't like you right off.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day
> > > > > One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force 
> > > > > myself to plow through his bloviated language. He 
> > > > > still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting 
> > > > > Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 
> > > > > 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty 
> > > > > writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm 
> > > > > the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not
> > > > > and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to
> > > > > waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > > So you only see the version of Barry that applies to 
> > > > > > you, a person he does not respect.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would
> > > > > say, "a person he barely acknowledges the existence of." :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. 
> > > > > The combination of you being present and his primary 
> > > > > devotee and groupie not being present this week was 
> > > > > too tempting for him to resist. :-)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[seventhray27]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> Still the best commentary ever on the "Man's Movement"
> (or at least one aspect of it), as delivered by Tom
> Cruise (hey, I know you don't like him, but he *has*
> done good work, and he was nominated for an Oscar for
> this performance, possibly for doing little more than
> acting like the asshole he is in real life), in "Magnolia."
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2IVF9a2IA
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCEYxs7kWmQ
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-q__knBahs



Know nothing about the movie, but this was some funny stuff.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Buck]

> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's]
> > > lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution.  Looked at
> > > as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by
> > > only a small subset of the larger community.  Nothing was said that
> > > could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people.
> > >
> > 
> > I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with my 
> > life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and unable 
> > to attend.
> >
> 
> 
> Yeah, funny thing is that it was proactive women in the larger FF community 
> that managed getting it video recorded.
>


Fairfield Sociology, 
  Still running in to people afterwards, men and women, who would have liked to 
have heard LB Shriver talk to the community the other night except that it was 
a thing by these men.  It's an interesting thing about the sociology of 
Fairfield.
Surveying and asking about this the common reaction to get from ru's of all the 
various types when asked if they wanted to or went to hear LB (both men and 
women) is,   "why did they make the meeting for men only?" 

> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 
> > > > 90's.  I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going).  I ended 
> > > > up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group. 
> > > >  It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american 
> > > > male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to 
> > > > manhood, etc...).  The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but 
> > > > primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men 
> > > > are becoming decade after decade in America.  It was a kind of 
> > > > eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it.  Othwerwise, I 
> > > > do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of perpetual 
> > > > abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by 
> > > > modern American males to avoid altogether.
> > > > 
> > > > However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a 
> > > > cult'.  Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now 
> > > > they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group.  I found that 
> > > > a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things 
> > > > that were just NOT a part of their character.  It was usually to 
> > > > display some masculinity or manliness.  There were so many of them that 
> > > > would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough 
> > > > their entire life.  The intensity of their recruiting efforts was 
> > > > borderline psychotic.  I honestly believe that only a sociopath could 
> > > > remain in that group without any serious conflict with others.  Many 
> > > > men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same 
> > > > perceptions that I had of it.  However, we all agreed it (the weekend 
> > > > seminar) changed our lives for the better.
> > > > 
> > > > The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all 
> > > > nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision 
> > > > to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official 
> > > > representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'.  I'm not sure why, but I 
> > > > think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was 
> > > > seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to 
> > > > other groups in the rest of the nation.  He was probably right.  A lot 
> > > > of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality 
> > > > or new-agism.  And if you take someone like that and latch them onto 
> > > > another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof.
> > > > 
> > > > All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some 
> > > > people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group 
> > > > activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it).  It was a 
> > > > major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want 
> > > > anything to do with them anymore.  It's worse than trying to tell a 
> > > > military recruiter that you changed your mind…..literally.  
> > > > 
> > > > seekliberation
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Dear Seek,
> > > Thanks, good post chronicling historic late 20th Century Fairfield 
> > > sociology.  Good insight.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, Richard in an earlier post had a good observation about this.  
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ri

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Share Long]

Good God, Xeno!  Sorry for religious term but I don't know how else to express 
my flabbergastedness.  Thank you so much for translation too.  
I wasn't able to find a good translator online.  They would translate a few 
words then revert to Latin.  Very vexing.  
Ok, I'll simply fumble along, not really adding much, but simply want to say 
that this IMHO has got to be not only one of your best writings but also one of 
the best writings to Robin that I have seen.  I appreciate how you're clear but 
also nuanced and rich in your expressions.  I appreciate how you're challenging 
without being confrontational or mean spirited.  Last but not least I 
appreciate your touch of humor with the kidney stones image.  I think I'm more 
than a little envious of your writing acumen in this post.  I shall now shut up 
and go shovel snow for the umpteenth time this year.  Ann, where are you when I 
need you and your shovel?   





 From: Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 12:07 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
>> With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely objective--i.e. 
>> truthful to reality.
>> 
>> [This would mean being able to trust implicitly in the deliverances of my 
>> first person ontology--that they are in agreement with the way things really 
>> are.]
>> 
>> It's very hard, feste--as you can see from my intemperate and irrational 
>> outburst against BW.
>> 
>> I am trying to find the self that is better than the Self. 
>> 
>> And, as you know, I am a very humble man.
>> 
>> But Christ! it ain't easy.
> 
> Magna secessione a tumultu rerum labentium, mihi crede, opus est, ut non 
> duritia, non audacia, non cupiditate inanis gloriae, non superstitiosa 
> credulitate fiat in homine nihil timere. Hine enim fit illud etiam solidum 
> guadium nullis omnino laetitiis ulla ex particula conferendum.

Augustine:
Complete withdrawal from the turmoil of transitory things 
is, believe me, essential before a man can develop that 
fearlessness in the face of death which is based neither 
on insensibility nor on foolhardy presumption, neither 
on the desire for empty glory nor on superstitious 
credulity. It is that which is the origin of that solid 
joy with which no pleasure from any transitory source 
is in any way to be compared. 

Still seeking enlightenment by any other name, Robin. I think you're 
approaching this backwards. 'With God. Trying to get him to make my 
subjectivity purely objective--i.e. truthful to reality.' In a world view of 
gods and men, the gods rule, man is subjugated. You cannot get the totality to 
bow to the demands of a part. You cannot have your objective reality as long as 
'you' are a part of it. In religious terms (which I tend to despise in 
actuality), you need to give up the ghost of your personal ontology, you cannot 
make a jumble of ideas that are called a personal 'self' a reality. Personal 
ontology is a useful conceptual vehicle for acting in the world, but it is 
mythological, it's a narrative, its not an entity, it is not actually real. You 
are trying to use a fictitious vehicle to understand reality. Your 'self' is 
like a massive impacted mass of kidney stones. It's your spiritual blockade. It 
is in your way at every turn. Forget trying to
 understand why Barry rejects you so wholeheartedly; your 'personal self', your 
ego, is nothing to him. Nobody's is (unless she has a bold personality and 
certain topographical contours perhaps). Your rejection of unity is based on 
the same problem, that 'you' were in unity. Nobody is in unity. The whole, 
whatever you call it, God as you would like to have it, is its own thing by 
itself. When the personal ontology drops away, the whole reveals itself, not 
because now you have achieved something and it decides to show you, but because 
it is always there and the crap has floated away, and so naturally, it can then 
be appreciated. Robin Carlsen is so dear to you. Robin Carlsen has to die. 
That's it.

I think you best pen pal here would be Curtis. But those discussions always go 
awry because whatever Robin is seen to be in your mind, that Robin is the 
centre. If you want to be religious about it, put God in the centre and lay 
Robin to rest. The nature of God might then express itself through that body 
with the name Robin, but not through 'you'. Personal ontology and spiritual 
maturity are not compatible.

'Although you perform many works, if you do not deny your will and submit 
yourself, losing all solicitude about yourself and your affairs, you will not 
make progress.' - St. John of the Cross

'Magna secessione a tumultu rerum labentium: Complete withdrawal from the 
turmoil of transitory things'. Why do you come back onto FFL?


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Xenophaneros Anartaxius]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
>> With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely objective--i.e. 
>> truthful to reality.
>> 
>> [This would mean being able to trust implicitly in the deliverances of my 
>> first person ontology--that they are in agreement with the way things really 
>> are.]
>> 
>> It's very hard, feste--as you can see from my intemperate and irrational 
>> outburst against BW.
>> 
>> I am trying to find the self that is better than the Self. 
>> 
>> And, as you know, I am a very humble man.
>> 
>> But Christ! it ain't easy.
> 
> Magna secessione a tumultu rerum labentium, mihi crede, opus est, ut non 
> duritia, non audacia, non cupiditate inanis gloriae, non superstitiosa 
> credulitate fiat in homine nihil timere. Hine enim fit illud etiam solidum 
> guadium nullis omnino laetitiis ulla ex particula conferendum.

Augustine:
Complete withdrawal from the turmoil of transitory things 
is, believe me, essential before a man can develop that 
fearlessness in the face of death which is based neither 
on insensibility nor on foolhardy presumption, neither 
on the desire for empty glory nor on superstitious 
credulity. It is that which is the origin of that solid 
joy with which no pleasure from any transitory source 
is in any way to be compared. 

Still seeking enlightenment by any other name, Robin. I think you're 
approaching this backwards. 'With God. Trying to get him to make my 
subjectivity purely objective--i.e. truthful to reality.' In a world view of 
gods and men, the gods rule, man is subjugated. You cannot get the totality to 
bow to the demands of a part. You cannot have your objective reality as long as 
'you' are a part of it. In religious terms (which I tend to despise in 
actuality), you need to give up the ghost of your personal ontology, you cannot 
make a jumble of ideas that are called a personal 'self' a reality. Personal 
ontology is a useful conceptual vehicle for acting in the world, but it is 
mythological, it's a narrative, its not an entity, it is not actually real. You 
are trying to use a fictitious vehicle to understand reality. Your 'self' is 
like a massive impacted mass of kidney stones. It's your spiritual blockade. It 
is in your way at every turn. Forget trying to understand why Barry rejects you 
so wholeheartedly; your 'personal self', your ego, is nothing to him. Nobody's 
is (unless she has a bold personality and certain topographical contours 
perhaps). Your rejection of unity is based on the same problem, that 'you' were 
in unity. Nobody is in unity. The whole, whatever you call it, God as you would 
like to have it, is its own thing by itself. When the personal ontology drops 
away, the whole reveals itself, not because now you have achieved something and 
it decides to show you, but because it is always there and the crap has floated 
away, and so naturally, it can then be appreciated. Robin Carlsen is so dear to 
you. Robin Carlsen has to die. That's it.

I think you best pen pal here would be Curtis. But those discussions always go 
awry because whatever Robin is seen to be in your mind, that Robin is the 
centre. If you want to be religious about it, put God in the centre and lay 
Robin to rest. The nature of God might then express itself through that body 
with the name Robin, but not through 'you'. Personal ontology and spiritual 
maturity are not compatible.

'Although you perform many works, if you do not deny your will and submit 
yourself, losing all solicitude about yourself and your affairs, you will not 
make progress.' - St. John of the Cross

'Magna secessione a tumultu rerum labentium: Complete withdrawal from the 
turmoil of transitory things'. Why do you come back onto FFL?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
> >
> > I do not believe even for a moment that Barry is not vulnerable or 
> > sensitive - he certainly is, but he doesn't make a show of it. When people 
> > talk here about great words, how we face life, how we interact with other 
> > people, you would certainly do good to be reminded about the nature of this 
> > interaction here: It is an internet forum. It is not real life. (That's why 
> > the famous, 'get a life'). So when for example Barry remarks, that he feels 
> > he needs a shower sometimes when he looks at FFL, (and so do I) he 
> > certainly shows sensitivity, and it also indicates that he is vulnerable.
> > 
> > Btw. I know him a lot longer than many of you do here, electronically 
> > speaking, and that in various configurations, as it is we were often 
> > opponents. People also forget that he is the one to let people share in his 
> > life and observations, his inner feelings about things, quite freely I 
> > find, and he exposes himself to the usual ridicule by being open. 
> > 
> > What I don't understand is Robin, and the way he thought he has to make a 
> > reappearance here. Why this way? Why write a big piece of frontal personal 
> > assault, and why concentrate at Barry at all? Is it that he wants to make 
> > up for Judys absence, or is it a twisted way of reaffirming his allegiance 
> > to her, because he needs her support? Or was he after feste, to get him 
> > back into the boat? Or did he really believe that he has such a special 
> > insight into Barrys soul, and he has to show off? I honestly don't know, 
> > but I think it was totally unnecessary.
> >
> 
> Yep, you people hijacked what was a perfectly good subject and drove it off 
> in to the ditch, again.  Could you re-subject the subject thread when you 
> take a turn and drive off?  It should be helpful to the reading public here.  
> Thank you in advance,
> -Buck  

This happens all the time, in every single subject thread. Ever play that game 
"telephone" where you have a circle of people and you whisper a sentence in 
someone's ear and they keep repeating that sentence until the last person 
speaks out what that sentence was and what started as "Men are invited to a 
meeting at the Dome with Shriver" ends up "Barry is an invulnerable jerk"? See, 
FFL is just like real life!
> 
>  
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  He is not open to 
> > > being vulnerable to people who he does not like.  Sometimes this is 
> > > people who attack him, but not always.  He didn't like you right off.  So 
> > > you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does 
> > > not respect.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or 
> > > > unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW 
> > > > must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite 
> > > > subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position.>
> > > 
> > > The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?)  I don't believe he sees any 
> > > reason to share anything with people he does not like or respect. He just 
> > > calls it as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a 
> > > dialogue, they are just projections of his POV, more writing exercise 
> > > than conversation.
> > > 
> > > If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they 
> > > often have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not 
> > > respecting or liking.  I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces 
> > > contrary to your perspective.  If a new poster showed up here today I 
> > > could probably predict with good accuracy how Barry would react to them.  
> > > It was easy to predict that you were not gunna be friends. 
> > > 
> > > So your statements probably do apply to you.  You may not have the 
> > > ability to see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you.  Do 
> > > you see Judy as any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting 
> > > with a person when she is doing her Judy thing?  Are you or me for that 
> > > matter?  Once we size someone up as not being worth the trouble, or that 
> > > they are openly hostile toward us, we all shut down the two way 
> > > conversation and might say something with no intention to be open to that 
> > > person. 
> > > 
> > > I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each 
> > > other space to express our opinions even if we differ.  So we get along 
> > > based on liking each other and trusting that the other person is not 
> > > gunna send out some version of what you just wrote.  I've received enough 
> > > of them myself from you to know that me writing this is not 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
>
> I do not believe even for a moment that Barry is not vulnerable or sensitive 
> - he certainly is, but he doesn't make a show of it. When people talk here 
> about great words, how we face life, how we interact with other people, you 
> would certainly do good to be reminded about the nature of this interaction 
> here: It is an internet forum. It is not real life. (That's why the famous, 
> 'get a life'). So when for example Barry remarks, that he feels he needs a 
> shower sometimes when he looks at FFL, (and so do I) he certainly shows 
> sensitivity, and it also indicates that he is vulnerable.
> 
> Btw. I know him a lot longer than many of you do here, electronically 
> speaking, and that in various configurations, as it is we were often 
> opponents. People also forget that he is the one to let people share in his 
> life and observations, his inner feelings about things, quite freely I find, 
> and he exposes himself to the usual ridicule by being open. 
> 
> What I don't understand is Robin, and the way he thought he has to make a 
> reappearance here. Why this way? Why write a big piece of frontal personal 
> assault, and why concentrate at Barry at all? Is it that he wants to make up 
> for Judys absence, or is it a twisted way of reaffirming his allegiance to 
> her, because he needs her support? Or was he after feste, to get him back 
> into the boat? Or did he really believe that he has such a special insight 
> into Barrys soul, and he has to show off? I honestly don't know, but I think 
> it was totally unnecessary.

Perhaps it was for the same reason that you feel you needed to "defend" Barry - 
you felt like it. Or maybe he reads FFL and something Barry said (and perhaps 
for the umpteenth time) just stirred an impulse inside of him to want to say 
something. Maybe because I can see how Barry throws his bullshit around, his 
blatant lies or his skewed perspective and Robin recognizes this too (like many 
of us do)  and couldn't sit there any more and say nothing. Who knows? Whatever 
it was Barry will continue on, oblivious, but will find something ugly and 
cheap to throw my way, at least, soon enough. Remember, he is very, very 
predictable - unfortunately.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > 
> > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  He is not open to 
> > being vulnerable to people who he does not like.  Sometimes this is people 
> > who attack him, but not always.  He didn't like you right off.  So you only 
> > see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect.
> > 
> > 
> > > BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, 
> > > to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as 
> > > he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily 
> > > be missed) argues for his position.>
> > 
> > The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?)  I don't believe he sees any reason 
> > to share anything with people he does not like or respect. He just calls it 
> > as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a dialogue, 
> > they are just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than 
> > conversation.
> > 
> > If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they 
> > often have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting 
> > or liking.  I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to 
> > your perspective.  If a new poster showed up here today I could probably 
> > predict with good accuracy how Barry would react to them.  It was easy to 
> > predict that you were not gunna be friends. 
> > 
> > So your statements probably do apply to you.  You may not have the ability 
> > to see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you.  Do you see 
> > Judy as any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting with a 
> > person when she is doing her Judy thing?  Are you or me for that matter?  
> > Once we size someone up as not being worth the trouble, or that they are 
> > openly hostile toward us, we all shut down the two way conversation and 
> > might say something with no intention to be open to that person. 
> > 
> > I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each 
> > other space to express our opinions even if we differ.  So we get along 
> > based on liking each other and trusting that the other person is not gunna 
> > send out some version of what you just wrote.  I've received enough of them 
> > myself from you to know that me writing this is not going to enter your 
> > consciousness beyond your reflexive attack mode.
> > 
> > Or you can prove me wrong. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok  wrote:
>
> I do not believe even for a moment that Barry is not vulnerable or sensitive 
> - he certainly is, but he doesn't make a show of it. When people talk here 
> about great words, how we face life, how we interact with other people, you 
> would certainly do good to be reminded about the nature of this interaction 
> here: It is an internet forum. It is not real life. (That's why the famous, 
> 'get a life'). So when for example Barry remarks, that he feels he needs a 
> shower sometimes when he looks at FFL, (and so do I) he certainly shows 
> sensitivity, and it also indicates that he is vulnerable.
> 
> Btw. I know him a lot longer than many of you do here, electronically 
> speaking, and that in various configurations, as it is we were often 
> opponents. People also forget that he is the one to let people share in his 
> life and observations, his inner feelings about things, quite freely I find, 
> and he exposes himself to the usual ridicule by being open. 
> 
> What I don't understand is Robin, and the way he thought he has to make a 
> reappearance here. Why this way? Why write a big piece of frontal personal 
> assault, and why concentrate at Barry at all? Is it that he wants to make up 
> for Judys absence, or is it a twisted way of reaffirming his allegiance to 
> her, because he needs her support? Or was he after feste, to get him back 
> into the boat? Or did he really believe that he has such a special insight 
> into Barrys soul, and he has to show off? I honestly don't know, but I think 
> it was totally unnecessary.
>

Yep, you people hijacked what was a perfectly good subject and drove it off in 
to the ditch, again.  Could you re-subject the subject thread when you take a 
turn and drive off?  It should be helpful to the reading public here.  Thank 
you in advance,
-Buck  

 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > 
> > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  He is not open to 
> > being vulnerable to people who he does not like.  Sometimes this is people 
> > who attack him, but not always.  He didn't like you right off.  So you only 
> > see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect.
> > 
> > 
> > > BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, 
> > > to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as 
> > > he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily 
> > > be missed) argues for his position.>
> > 
> > The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?)  I don't believe he sees any reason 
> > to share anything with people he does not like or respect. He just calls it 
> > as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a dialogue, 
> > they are just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than 
> > conversation.
> > 
> > If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they 
> > often have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting 
> > or liking.  I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to 
> > your perspective.  If a new poster showed up here today I could probably 
> > predict with good accuracy how Barry would react to them.  It was easy to 
> > predict that you were not gunna be friends. 
> > 
> > So your statements probably do apply to you.  You may not have the ability 
> > to see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you.  Do you see 
> > Judy as any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting with a 
> > person when she is doing her Judy thing?  Are you or me for that matter?  
> > Once we size someone up as not being worth the trouble, or that they are 
> > openly hostile toward us, we all shut down the two way conversation and 
> > might say something with no intention to be open to that person. 
> > 
> > I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each 
> > other space to express our opinions even if we differ.  So we get along 
> > based on liking each other and trusting that the other person is not gunna 
> > send out some version of what you just wrote.  I've received enough of them 
> > myself from you to know that me writing this is not going to enter your 
> > consciousness beyond your reflexive attack mode.
> > 
> > Or you can prove me wrong. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > > > > > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > > > > > > the course he was a p

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[navashok]

I do not believe even for a moment that Barry is not vulnerable or sensitive - 
he certainly is, but he doesn't make a show of it. When people talk here about 
great words, how we face life, how we interact with other people, you would 
certainly do good to be reminded about the nature of this interaction here: It 
is an internet forum. It is not real life. (That's why the famous, 'get a 
life'). So when for example Barry remarks, that he feels he needs a shower 
sometimes when he looks at FFL, (and so do I) he certainly shows sensitivity, 
and it also indicates that he is vulnerable.

Btw. I know him a lot longer than many of you do here, electronically speaking, 
and that in various configurations, as it is we were often opponents. People 
also forget that he is the one to let people share in his life and 
observations, his inner feelings about things, quite freely I find, and he 
exposes himself to the usual ridicule by being open. 

What I don't understand is Robin, and the way he thought he has to make a 
reappearance here. Why this way? Why write a big piece of frontal personal 
assault, and why concentrate at Barry at all? Is it that he wants to make up 
for Judys absence, or is it a twisted way of reaffirming his allegiance to her, 
because he needs her support? Or was he after feste, to get him back into the 
boat? Or did he really believe that he has such a special insight into Barrys 
soul, and he has to show off? I honestly don't know, but I think it was totally 
unnecessary.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> 
> Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  He is not open to 
> being vulnerable to people who he does not like.  Sometimes this is people 
> who attack him, but not always.  He didn't like you right off.  So you only 
> see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect.
> 
> 
> > BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, 
> > to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he 
> > so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be 
> > missed) argues for his position.>
> 
> The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?)  I don't believe he sees any reason 
> to share anything with people he does not like or respect. He just calls it 
> as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a dialogue, 
> they are just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than conversation.
> 
> If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they often 
> have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting or 
> liking.  I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to your 
> perspective.  If a new poster showed up here today I could probably predict 
> with good accuracy how Barry would react to them.  It was easy to predict 
> that you were not gunna be friends. 
> 
> So your statements probably do apply to you.  You may not have the ability to 
> see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you.  Do you see Judy as 
> any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting with a person when 
> she is doing her Judy thing?  Are you or me for that matter?  Once we size 
> someone up as not being worth the trouble, or that they are openly hostile 
> toward us, we all shut down the two way conversation and might say something 
> with no intention to be open to that person. 
> 
> I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each other 
> space to express our opinions even if we differ.  So we get along based on 
> liking each other and trusting that the other person is not gunna send out 
> some version of what you just wrote.  I've received enough of them myself 
> from you to know that me writing this is not going to enter your 
> consciousness beyond your reflexive attack mode.
> 
> Or you can prove me wrong. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > > > > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > > > > > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> > > > > > but after the course he became a complete asshole. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Color me not surprised. :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? 
> > > > 
> > > > Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to 
> > > > you. But it seems that others have to work on it. 
> > > 
> > > You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-)
> > > 
> > > Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called
> > > you on acting like a cult

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Ravi Chivukula]

"Barry doesn't begin to have the tools to "deal" with Robin."

Tell me about it, Barry is too intellectually, emotionally stunted and
retarded to watch Robin's brilliance - his intelligence, wit, irony,
sensitivity, love. Is this even a topic of discussion - that Barry has
tools to deal with Robin? God I hope not...LOL.

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Ann  wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.
>
> Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him. His criteria
> for liking or not liking someone are very transparent and quite simple.
> They include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes
> personal challenge coming from others. If that challenge takes the form of
> anything resembling a different viewpoint or one that makes him have to
> question his very rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract,
> apologize or question his position he will take that as a personal attack
> or as a sign of boringness, cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the
> part of that person.
>
>
> > He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like.
>
> Barry is never vulnerable on this forum. Ever.
>
>
> > Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always. He didn't like
> you right off. So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a
> person he does not respect.
>
> Barry doesn't begin to have the tools to "deal" with Robin. He is so far
> out of his depth, his comfort zone his perception of what is unknown or
> possible that to actually interact on even the most superficial level with
> Robin would require something Barry simply does not possess or refuses to
> acknowledge. It is kind of like asking a seal to run the 100m dash in 10
> seconds on dry land. Not possible.
>
>
> >
> >
> > > BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or
> unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must
> be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and
> can easily be missed) argues for his position.>
> >
> > The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?) I don't believe he sees any
> reason to share anything with people he does not like or respect.
>
> This excuse of "respect" is not about that at all. That is a convenient
> but erroneous description of what is really going on. It isn't about what
> Barry feels about the other person it is what the other person makes Barry
> feel about himself and THAT is what Barry dislikes. When he is made to feel
> inadequate he will point his finger at the other person and claim they are
> to blame; they are too boring or stupid or dogmatic. He will never take
> responsibility for himself and the reasons he feels the way he does. It
> will always be about the other guy.
>
>
> >He just calls it as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an
> opening for a dialogue, they are just projections of his POV, more writing
> exercise than conversation.
>
> Exactly.
>
> >
> > If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they
> often have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting
> or liking. I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to
> your perspective. If a new poster showed up here today I could probably
> predict with good accuracy how Barry would react to them. It was easy to
> predict that you were not gunna be friends.
>
> Yes, I will give you that. Barry IS predictable. Ridiculously so. This is
> a man who lives in a world that is bound and known and very limited. He can
> only venture so far with a person - new acquaintance or old. When he hits
> the property line, where the boundaries end, he stops dead. And those
> boundaries are those determined by his own limitations of self.
> >
> > So your statements probably do apply to you. You may not have the
> ability to see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you.
>
> I don't think so Curtis. Many people have pretty good ideas of how Barry
> functions but Robin's today took the proverbial cake; it was far and away
> the most sophisticated reading of the man and one that you might have a
> chance of comprehending but Barry never will for, if he could, it would
> disprove what Robin wrote and what I have just said. Not that we said or
> are saying the same thing.
>
>
> >Do you see Judy as any more vulnerable and interested in really
> interacting with a person when she is doing her Judy thing? Are you or me
> for that matter? Once we size someone up as not being worth the trouble, or
> that they are openly hostile toward us, we all shut down the two way
> conversation and might say something with no intention to be open to that
> person.
>
> You can't generalize like this. I, for one, am always open to reading
> someone's post for what new tone or attitude might emerge. I

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> 
> Your analysis might apply to people he does not like. 

Curtis, Barry does not like anyone who disagrees with him. His criteria for 
liking or not liking someone are very transparent and quite simple. They 
include more than the one I just mentioned, but ultimately he dislikes personal 
challenge coming from others. If that challenge takes the form of anything 
resembling a different viewpoint or one that makes him have to question his 
very rigid beliefs or one that requires him to retract, apologize or question 
his position he will take that as a personal attack or as a sign of boringness, 
cuntness, small mindedness or stupidity on the part of that person.

> He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he does not like. 

Barry is never vulnerable on this forum. Ever.

> Sometimes this is people who attack him, but not always.  He didn't like you 
> right off.  So you only see the version of Barry that applies to you, a 
> person he does not respect.

Barry doesn't begin to have the tools to "deal" with Robin. He is so far out of 
his depth, his comfort zone his perception of what is unknown or possible that 
to actually interact on even the most superficial level with Robin would 
require something Barry simply does not possess or refuses to acknowledge. It 
is kind of like asking a seal to run the 100m dash in 10 seconds on dry land. 
Not possible.

> 
> 
> > BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, 
> > to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he 
> > so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be 
> > missed) argues for his position.>
> 
> The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?)  I don't believe he sees any reason 
> to share anything with people he does not like or respect. 

This excuse of "respect" is not about that at all. That is a convenient but 
erroneous description of what is really going on. It isn't about what Barry 
feels about the other person it is what the other person makes Barry feel about 
himself and THAT is what Barry dislikes. When he is made to feel inadequate he 
will point his finger at the other person and claim they are to blame; they are 
too boring or stupid or dogmatic. He will never take responsibility for himself 
and the reasons he feels the way he does. It will always be about the other guy.

>He just calls it as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for 
>a dialogue, they are just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than 
>conversation.

Exactly.
> 
> If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they often 
> have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting or 
> liking.  I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to your 
> perspective.  If a new poster showed up here today I could probably predict 
> with good accuracy how Barry would react to them.  It was easy to predict 
> that you were not gunna be friends. 

Yes, I will give you that. Barry IS predictable. Ridiculously so. This is a man 
who lives in a world that is bound and known and very limited. He can only 
venture so far with a person - new acquaintance or old. When he hits the 
property line, where the boundaries end, he stops dead. And those boundaries 
are those determined by his own limitations of self. 
> 
> So your statements probably do apply to you.  You may not have the ability to 
> see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you. 

I don't think so Curtis. Many people have pretty good ideas of how Barry 
functions but Robin's today took the proverbial cake; it was far and away the 
most sophisticated reading of the man and one that you might have a chance of 
comprehending but Barry never will for, if he could, it would disprove what 
Robin wrote and what I have just said. Not that we said or are saying the same 
thing.

>Do you see Judy as any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting 
>with a person when she is doing her Judy thing?  Are you or me for that 
>matter?  Once we size someone up as not being worth the trouble, or that they 
>are openly hostile toward us, we all shut down the two way conversation and 
>might say something with no intention to be open to that person. 

You can't generalize like this. I, for one, am always open to reading someone's 
post for what new tone or attitude might emerge. I have ideas about what people 
are like here but I am happy to be surprised and welcome that surprise when it 
occurs. I am as open to Barry as I am to anyone here and have commented 
positively about some of his posts. You simply can not clump everyone here as 
operating from the same origin of perception. 
> 
> I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each other 
> space to express our opinions even if we differ.

But you n

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[doctordumbass]

Ethel, one last thing -- given my unspoken desire that you get over yourself, I 
thought it unfair to not let you in on your utter cluelessness, regarding your 
earlier assumptions, so I have addressed them below:

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> > >
> > > Ha-Ha! You are quite obsessed with Robin, Barry. You never fail to 
> > > describe his writing style and his ideas. Kinda like the whole "Message 
> > > View" crap you tried to pull here. Like that old joke: How can you tell 
> > > Barry is bullshitting? His fingers are typing.:-)
> > > 
> > > Face it dude. You are just an ordinary guy, with some premature exposure 
> > > to spiritual concepts you have no business dabbling in. Yeah, you were a 
> > > TM Technician, and paid big bucks to a suicidal rapist. Other than that, 
> > > same old, same old.
> > > 
> > > The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, 
> > > of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery 
> > > and know that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, 
> > > Curtis. 
> > 
> > So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me Jim.  
> > Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and that this 
> > would somehow be an insult because of your negative views of gay people?

**I don't have any negative views of gay people, though I have sometimes had 
negative views of people that happened to be gay. My best friend for 32 years 
was gay, and died of AIDS. He was also my younger brother, RIP. So, fuck you, 
on assumption #1.

> > Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of contempt 
> > because I am really an inferior woman rather than a man?

**My wife, daughter, and sister-in-law could *easily*, each separately, kick 
your ass. Turn you into meat. #2 goes down in flames too.

**Hm...course correction time, Ethel??

> > 
> > In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim.  You are a very 
> > unpleasant person underneath the "I am enlightened, no really , I am really 
> > enlightened, no really I am" rap.
> > 
> Message number one, Ethel: Enlightened people can be very unpleasant to fools 
> (like you). 
> 
> My reference was to Fred and Ethel, you and Barry. I just quickly painted the 
> picture, which still draws a chuckle from me. Read anything at all into it. 
> Then own it, and act on your assumptions. After that, you will truly know the 
> difference between experience and beliefs. Or given your's and Fred's track 
> record, probably not. :-)
> 
> PS Fred called me a "meanie". Ain't that a hoot?? 
> 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  
> > > > > He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he 
> > > > > does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack 
> > > > > him, but not always. He didn't like you right off.  
> > > > 
> > > > That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day
> > > > One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force 
> > > > myself to plow through his bloviated language. He 
> > > > still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting 
> > > > Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 
> > > > 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty 
> > > > writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm 
> > > > the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not
> > > > and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to
> > > > waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > > So you only see the version of Barry that applies to 
> > > > > you, a person he does not respect.
> > > > 
> > > > This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would
> > > > say, "a person he barely acknowledges the existence of." :-)
> > > > 
> > > > BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. 
> > > > The combination of you being present and his primary 
> > > > devotee and groupie not being present this week was 
> > > > too tempting for him to resist. :-)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[doctordumbass]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@  wrote:
> >
> > Ha-Ha! You are quite obsessed with Robin, Barry. You never fail to describe 
> > his writing style and his ideas. Kinda like the whole "Message View" crap 
> > you tried to pull here. Like that old joke: How can you tell Barry is 
> > bullshitting? His fingers are typing.:-)
> > 
> > Face it dude. You are just an ordinary guy, with some premature exposure to 
> > spiritual concepts you have no business dabbling in. Yeah, you were a TM 
> > Technician, and paid big bucks to a suicidal rapist. Other than that, same 
> > old, same old.
> > 
> > The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, 
> > of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and 
> > know that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. 
> 
> So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me Jim.  
> Are you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and that this would 
> somehow be an insult because of your negative views of gay people?
> 
> Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of contempt because 
> I am really an inferior woman rather than a man?
> 
> In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim.  You are a very 
> unpleasant person underneath the "I am enlightened, no really , I am really 
> enlightened, no really I am" rap.
> 
Message number one, Ethel: Enlightened people can be very unpleasant to fools 
(like you). 

My reference was to Fred and Ethel, you and Barry. I just quickly painted the 
picture, which still draws a chuckle from me. Read anything at all into it. 
Then own it, and act on your assumptions. After that, you will truly know the 
difference between experience and beliefs. Or given your's and Fred's track 
record, probably not. :-)

PS Fred called me a "meanie". Ain't that a hoot?? 

> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  
> > > > He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he 
> > > > does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack 
> > > > him, but not always. He didn't like you right off.  
> > > 
> > > That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day
> > > One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force 
> > > myself to plow through his bloviated language. He 
> > > still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting 
> > > Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 
> > > 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty 
> > > writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm 
> > > the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not
> > > and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to
> > > waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-)
> > > 
> > > > So you only see the version of Barry that applies to 
> > > > you, a person he does not respect.
> > > 
> > > This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would
> > > say, "a person he barely acknowledges the existence of." :-)
> > > 
> > > BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. 
> > > The combination of you being present and his primary 
> > > devotee and groupie not being present this week was 
> > > too tempting for him to resist. :-)
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Wow. Some guys get mean when their fag hag is away.
Take a moment. Be still. Have a look.








>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> > Ha-Ha! You are quite obsessed with Robin, Barry. You never fail to
describe his writing style and his ideas. Kinda like the whole "Message
View" crap you tried to pull here. Like that old joke: How can you tell
Barry is bullshitting? His fingers are typing.:-)
> >
> > Face it dude. You are just an ordinary guy, with some premature
exposure to spiritual concepts you have no business dabbling in. Yeah,
you were a TM Technician, and paid big bucks to a suicidal rapist. Other
than that, same old, same old.
> >
> > The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But
then, of course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and
trickery and know that most of us have your number, except for your
girlfriend, Curtis.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.
> > > > He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he
> > > > does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack
> > > > him, but not always. He didn't like you right off.
> > >
> > > That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day
> > > One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force
> > > myself to plow through his bloviated language. He
> > > still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting
> > > Next on the previous one, read no more than the first
> > > 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty
> > > writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm
> > > the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not
> > > and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to
> > > waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-)
> > >
> > > > So you only see the version of Barry that applies to
> > > > you, a person he does not respect.
> > >
> > > This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would
> > > say, "a person he barely acknowledges the existence of." :-)
> > >
> > > BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now.
> > > The combination of you being present and his primary
> > > devotee and groupie not being present this week was
> > > too tempting for him to resist. :-)
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[seventhray27]

Richard,  you made a funny!


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"
 wrote:


> Sasquatch takes pictures of him.
> He ran a marathon because it was on his way.
> He can share insider jokes to with total strangers.
>
> He is the most interesting man on the planet!

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[feste37]

Exactly. That Augustine certainly knew a thing or two. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > Ah, I like that. "With" God, not "one with God." Very Christian. And yea, 
> > too, for "the self" that is better than "the Self," because who can match 
> > any one of us in our exquisite uniqueness -- not the Self, surely, which is 
> > boringly the same yesterday, today, and forever! 
> 
> Magna secessione a tumultu rerum labentium, mihi crede, opus est, ut non 
> duritia, non audacia, non cupiditate inanis gloriae, non superstitiosa 
> credulitate fiat in homine nihil timere. Hine enim fit illud etiam solidum 
> guadium nullis omnino laetitiis ulla ex particula conferendum.  
>  
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Welcome back, MZ! Where have you been?
> > > 
> > > With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely 
> > > objective--i.e. truthful to reality.
> > > 
> > > [This would mean being able to trust implicitly in the deliverances of my 
> > > first person ontology--that they are in agreement with the way things 
> > > really are.]
> > > 
> > > It's very hard, feste--as you can see from my intemperate and irrational 
> > > outburst against BW.
> > > 
> > > I am trying to find the self that is better than the Self. 
> > > 
> > > And, as you know, I am a very humble man.
> > > 
> > > But Christ! it ain't easy.
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > > > > > > > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > > > > > > > > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> > > > > > > > > but after the course he became a complete asshole. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Color me not surprised. :-)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to 
> > > > > > > you. But it seems that others have to work on it. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called
> > > > > > you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are.
> > > > > > You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain
> > > > > > WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just
> > > > > > played "Shoot the messenger." How cultist can one get?
> > > > > > Just sayin'...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If you disagree with something I said, try explaining
> > > > > > WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with,
> > > > > > or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would
> > > > > > do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying 
> > > > > > a grudge over something that real men would have gotten 
> > > > > > over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten
> > > > > > minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a 
> > > > > strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and 
> > > > > subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that 
> > > > > person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates 
> > > > > any concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is 
> > > > > saying he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to 
> > > > > what is true, how successful he envisages he will be when others read 
> > > > > what he has written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he 
> > > > > will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and 
> > > > > makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating the 
> > > > > frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of 
> > > > > this singular method of provocation.
> > > > > 
> > > > > BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or 
> > > > > unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW 
> > > > > must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite 
> > > > > subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. But note: 
> > > > > BW cannot really have any investment in or commitment to anything he 
> > > > > says by way of controversy. And why is this? Because he excludes from 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Ha-Ha! You are quite obsessed with Robin, Barry. You never fail to describe 
> his writing style and his ideas. Kinda like the whole "Message View" crap you 
> tried to pull here. Like that old joke: How can you tell Barry is 
> bullshitting? His fingers are typing.:-)
> 
> Face it dude. You are just an ordinary guy, with some premature exposure to 
> spiritual concepts you have no business dabbling in. Yeah, you were a TM 
> Technician, and paid big bucks to a suicidal rapist. Other than that, same 
> old, same old.
> 
> The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of 
> course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know 
> that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. 

So let just understand how you are intending this as an insult to me Jim.  Are 
you implying that Barry and I have a gay relationship and that this would 
somehow be an insult because of your negative views of gay people?

Or are you saying that I am a female and therefor worthy of contempt because I 
am really an inferior woman rather than a man?

In your anger you always reveal your hidden cards Jim.  You are a very 
unpleasant person underneath the "I am enlightened, no really , I am really 
enlightened, no really I am" rap.







> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  
> > > He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he 
> > > does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack 
> > > him, but not always. He didn't like you right off.  
> > 
> > That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day
> > One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force 
> > myself to plow through his bloviated language. He 
> > still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting 
> > Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 
> > 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty 
> > writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm 
> > the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not
> > and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to
> > waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-)
> > 
> > > So you only see the version of Barry that applies to 
> > > you, a person he does not respect.
> > 
> > This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would
> > say, "a person he barely acknowledges the existence of." :-)
> > 
> > BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. 
> > The combination of you being present and his primary 
> > devotee and groupie not being present this week was 
> > too tempting for him to resist. :-)
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
>
> Ah, I like that. "With" God, not "one with God." Very Christian. And yea, 
> too, for "the self" that is better than "the Self," because who can match any 
> one of us in our exquisite uniqueness -- not the Self, surely, which is 
> boringly the same yesterday, today, and forever! 

Magna secessione a tumultu rerum labentium, mihi crede, opus est, ut non 
duritia, non audacia, non cupiditate inanis gloriae, non superstitiosa 
credulitate fiat in homine nihil timere. Hine enim fit illud etiam solidum 
guadium nullis omnino laetitiis ulla ex particula conferendum.  
 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Welcome back, MZ! Where have you been?
> > 
> > With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely objective--i.e. 
> > truthful to reality.
> > 
> > [This would mean being able to trust implicitly in the deliverances of my 
> > first person ontology--that they are in agreement with the way things 
> > really are.]
> > 
> > It's very hard, feste--as you can see from my intemperate and irrational 
> > outburst against BW.
> > 
> > I am trying to find the self that is better than the Self. 
> > 
> > And, as you know, I am a very humble man.
> > 
> > But Christ! it ain't easy.
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > > > > > > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > > > > > > > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> > > > > > > > but after the course he became a complete asshole. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Color me not surprised. :-)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to 
> > > > > > you. But it seems that others have to work on it. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called
> > > > > you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are.
> > > > > You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain
> > > > > WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just
> > > > > played "Shoot the messenger." How cultist can one get?
> > > > > Just sayin'...
> > > > > 
> > > > > If you disagree with something I said, try explaining
> > > > > WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with,
> > > > > or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would
> > > > > do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying 
> > > > > a grudge over something that real men would have gotten 
> > > > > over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten
> > > > > minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course.
> > > > 
> > > > Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a 
> > > > strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and 
> > > > subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that 
> > > > person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates 
> > > > any concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is 
> > > > saying he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what 
> > > > is true, how successful he envisages he will be when others read what 
> > > > he has written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will 
> > > > outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes 
> > > > sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration 
> > > > and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this singular 
> > > > method of provocation.
> > > > 
> > > > BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or 
> > > > unconsciously, to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW 
> > > > must be having as he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite 
> > > > subtle and can easily be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW 
> > > > cannot really have any investment in or commitment to anything he says 
> > > > by way of controversy. And why is this? Because he excludes from his 
> > > > experience in the act of writing any possible feedback he might get 
> > > > from himself as he writes into reality and the consciousness of other 
> > > > persons.
> > > > 
> > > > If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely 
> > > > opinionated posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to 
> > > > your

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[turquoiseb]

Wow. Some guys get mean when their fag hag is away.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@...  wrote:
>
> Ha-Ha! You are quite obsessed with Robin, Barry. You never fail to describe 
> his writing style and his ideas. Kinda like the whole "Message View" crap you 
> tried to pull here. Like that old joke: How can you tell Barry is 
> bullshitting? His fingers are typing.:-)
> 
> Face it dude. You are just an ordinary guy, with some premature exposure to 
> spiritual concepts you have no business dabbling in. Yeah, you were a TM 
> Technician, and paid big bucks to a suicidal rapist. Other than that, same 
> old, same old.
> 
> The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of 
> course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know 
> that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  
> > > He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he 
> > > does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack 
> > > him, but not always. He didn't like you right off.  
> > 
> > That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day
> > One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force 
> > myself to plow through his bloviated language. He 
> > still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting 
> > Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 
> > 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty 
> > writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm 
> > the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not
> > and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to
> > waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-)
> > 
> > > So you only see the version of Barry that applies to 
> > > you, a person he does not respect.
> > 
> > This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would
> > say, "a person he barely acknowledges the existence of." :-)
> > 
> > BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. 
> > The combination of you being present and his primary 
> > devotee and groupie not being present this week was 
> > too tempting for him to resist. :-)
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[feste37]

Ah, I like that. "With" God, not "one with God." Very Christian. And yea, too, 
for "the self" that is better than "the Self," because who can match any one of 
us in our exquisite uniqueness -- not the Self, surely, which is boringly the 
same yesterday, today, and forever!   

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > Welcome back, MZ! Where have you been?
> 
> With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely objective--i.e. 
> truthful to reality.
> 
> [This would mean being able to trust implicitly in the deliverances of my 
> first person ontology--that they are in agreement with the way things really 
> are.]
> 
> It's very hard, feste--as you can see from my intemperate and irrational 
> outburst against BW.
> 
> I am trying to find the self that is better than the Self. 
> 
> And, as you know, I am a very humble man.
> 
> But Christ! it ain't easy.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > > > > > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > > > > > > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> > > > > > > but after the course he became a complete asshole. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Color me not surprised. :-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to 
> > > > > you. But it seems that others have to work on it. 
> > > > 
> > > > You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called
> > > > you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are.
> > > > You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain
> > > > WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just
> > > > played "Shoot the messenger." How cultist can one get?
> > > > Just sayin'...
> > > > 
> > > > If you disagree with something I said, try explaining
> > > > WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with,
> > > > or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would
> > > > do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying 
> > > > a grudge over something that real men would have gotten 
> > > > over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten
> > > > minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course.
> > > 
> > > Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a 
> > > strong opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and 
> > > subjective experience of themselves when they do this--even if that 
> > > person (and even the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any 
> > > concern--this is mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying 
> > > he really believes, how he experiences his relationship to what is true, 
> > > how successful he envisages he will be when others read what he has 
> > > written). BW plays against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and 
> > > offend persons: he lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he 
> > > writes his main focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval 
> > > in those readers who will be a victim of this singular method of 
> > > provocation.
> > > 
> > > BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, 
> > > to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as 
> > > he so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily 
> > > be missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any 
> > > investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. 
> > > And why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of 
> > > writing any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into 
> > > reality and the consciousness of other persons.
> > > 
> > > If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely 
> > > opinionated posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to 
> > > your very deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of 
> > > psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will 
> > > ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually 
> > > acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any 
> > > responsibility to truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of 
> > > truth. This becomes the context out of which he writes: to generate an 
> > > unnoticed vulnerability in the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion 
> > > bu

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Robin Carlsen]

Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong 
opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective 
experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the 
reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is 
mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how 
he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he 
will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these 
forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this 
contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating 
the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this 
singular method of provocation.

BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to 
derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so 
slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) 
argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any investment in or 
commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And why is this? Because 
he excludes from his experience in the act of writing any possible feedback he 
might get from himself as he writes into reality and the consciousness of other 
persons.

If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated 
posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest 
response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and 
intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your 
experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of 
this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to 
truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of truth. This becomes the 
context out of which he writes: to generate an unnoticed vulnerability in the 
reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but anaesthetizes himself in the very 
execution of this act such that only you are feeling and experiencing anything 
at all. For BW makes sure he is feeling nothing. A zero.

What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense that 
BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely interested 
he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by how much he cares 
about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You see, BW plays against 
all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from reality (reality here 
being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; reality being the 
experience of BW of himself as he writes his opinion of some controversial 
issue; reality being what actual reality might think about what he has written) 
BW creates a context which makes those readers who are not predetermined to 
approve of BW (no matter what he says) the perfect victim of BW's systematic 
and controlled mind game.

BW relishes the fact that he knows that he has complete control over his 
subjective experience of himself as he acts (action here constituting his posts 
on FFL). In this sense: His subjectivity is entirely in the service of 
producing the particular effect he is seeking in those readers whom he knows 
are the innocent registrars of their experience--this is, as I have stipulated, 
likely to be unconscious or subconscious. For everyone else but BW has to bear 
the consequences of their deeds as they enact them. Not BW. Not only does he 
vaccinate himself against any feedback from others, but he vaccinates himself 
against any feedback from himself. This means the FFL reader experiences a 
strange kind of reality: A person who is expressing a strong opinion who, when 
he does this, does not offer up any evidence of what his own experience is of 
himself when he does this.

Thus deprives the reader of a constituent element in reading what someone 
writes which that reader's unconscious has always assumed is there.

It is not, and this is the negative vertigo that is created in the 
quasi-objective and impartial FFL reader. And it is why BW is able to remain 
inside of himself as if he is the only person in the universe and he has been 
posting only to himself.  As if this were the case, since he has removed 
himself from the context of 1. his own self-experience 2. the experience of the 
reader 3. the interactive fact of BW in relationship to reality and what 
abstractly even might be the actual truth of the matter about which he is 
writing.

BW's game goes unnoticed. But it is critic-proof. The more agitated or scornful 
or ironic or commonsensical or reasonable someone is in attempting to challenge 
what BW has written, to the extent to which this represents a real intention 
inside the other person, is the extent to which that intention--and the writing 
of a counter-post--will end up in empty space--No one is there.

BW has delighted himself by becoming dead to 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[doctordumbass]

Ha-Ha! You are quite obsessed with Robin, Barry. You never fail to describe his 
writing style and his ideas. Kinda like the whole "Message View" crap you tried 
to pull here. Like that old joke: How can you tell Barry is bullshitting? His 
fingers are typing.:-)

Face it dude. You are just an ordinary guy, with some premature exposure to 
spiritual concepts you have no business dabbling in. Yeah, you were a TM 
Technician, and paid big bucks to a suicidal rapist. Other than that, same old, 
same old.

The only thing unique about you is your lack of self awareness. But then, of 
course you know that. So continue with your falsehoods and trickery and know 
that most of us have your number, except for your girlfriend, Curtis. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  
> > He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he 
> > does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack 
> > him, but not always. He didn't like you right off.  
> 
> That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day
> One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force 
> myself to plow through his bloviated language. He 
> still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting 
> Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 
> 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty 
> writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm 
> the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not
> and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to
> waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-)
> 
> > So you only see the version of Barry that applies to 
> > you, a person he does not respect.
> 
> This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would
> say, "a person he barely acknowledges the existence of." :-)
> 
> BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. 
> The combination of you being present and his primary 
> devotee and groupie not being present this week was 
> too tempting for him to resist. :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
>
> Welcome back, MZ! Where have you been?

With God. Trying to get him to make my subjectivity purely objective--i.e. 
truthful to reality.

[This would mean being able to trust implicitly in the deliverances of my first 
person ontology--that they are in agreement with the way things really are.]

It's very hard, feste--as you can see from my intemperate and irrational 
outburst against BW.

I am trying to find the self that is better than the Self. 

And, as you know, I am a very humble man.

But Christ! it ain't easy.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > > > > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > > > > > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> > > > > > but after the course he became a complete asshole. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Color me not surprised. :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? 
> > > > 
> > > > Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to 
> > > > you. But it seems that others have to work on it. 
> > > 
> > > You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-)
> > > 
> > > Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called
> > > you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are.
> > > You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain
> > > WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just
> > > played "Shoot the messenger." How cultist can one get?
> > > Just sayin'...
> > > 
> > > If you disagree with something I said, try explaining
> > > WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with,
> > > or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would
> > > do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying 
> > > a grudge over something that real men would have gotten 
> > > over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten
> > > minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course.
> > 
> > Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong 
> > opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective 
> > experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even 
> > the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is 
> > mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, 
> > how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he 
> > envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays 
> > against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he 
> > lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main 
> > focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers 
> > who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation.
> > 
> > BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, 
> > to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he 
> > so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be 
> > missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any 
> > investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And 
> > why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing 
> > any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality 
> > and the consciousness of other persons.
> > 
> > If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated 
> > posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very 
> > deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of 
> > psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will 
> > ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually 
> > acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any 
> > responsibility to truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of 
> > truth. This becomes the context out of which he writes: to generate an 
> > unnoticed vulnerability in the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but 
> > anaesthetizes himself in the very execution of this act such that only you 
> > are feeling and experiencing anything at all. For BW makes sure he is 
> > feeling nothing. A zero.
> > 
> > What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense 
> > that BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely 
> > interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by 
> > how much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You 
> > see, BW plays against all this, an

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[salyavin808]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
>
> Welcome back, MZ! Where have you been?

You can lurk but you can never leave




> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > > > > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > > > > > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> > > > > > but after the course he became a complete asshole. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Color me not surprised. :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? 
> > > > 
> > > > Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to 
> > > > you. But it seems that others have to work on it. 
> > > 
> > > You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-)
> > > 
> > > Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called
> > > you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are.
> > > You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain
> > > WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just
> > > played "Shoot the messenger." How cultist can one get?
> > > Just sayin'...
> > > 
> > > If you disagree with something I said, try explaining
> > > WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with,
> > > or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would
> > > do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying 
> > > a grudge over something that real men would have gotten 
> > > over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten
> > > minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course.
> > 
> > Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong 
> > opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective 
> > experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even 
> > the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is 
> > mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, 
> > how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he 
> > envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays 
> > against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he 
> > lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main 
> > focus is on stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers 
> > who will be a victim of this singular method of provocation.
> > 
> > BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, 
> > to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he 
> > so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be 
> > missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any 
> > investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And 
> > why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing 
> > any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality 
> > and the consciousness of other persons.
> > 
> > If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated 
> > posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very 
> > deepest response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of 
> > psychological and intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will 
> > ignore your experience--and possible response--but that he is actually 
> > acutely aware of this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any 
> > responsibility to truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of 
> > truth. This becomes the context out of which he writes: to generate an 
> > unnoticed vulnerability in the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but 
> > anaesthetizes himself in the very execution of this act such that only you 
> > are feeling and experiencing anything at all. For BW makes sure he is 
> > feeling nothing. A zero.
> > 
> > What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense 
> > that BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely 
> > interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by 
> > how much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You 
> > see, BW plays against all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from 
> > reality (reality here being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; 
> > reality being the experience of BW of himself as he writes his opinion of 
> > some controversial issue; reality being what actual reality might think 
> > about what he has written) BW creates a context which makes those readers 
> > who are not predetermined to approve of BW (no matter what he says) the 
> > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Robin Carlsen]

If Barry approves of this, I do.

You must realize, though, Curtis, that not all of us can aspire to such saintly 
disinterestedness and impartiality as you do (as evidenced in this post).

You attempted one approach; now you proffer another one.

We are all different; we each have our own personal and unavoidable (and 
uncorrectable) point of view.

I can't help but being prejudiced and biased against Barry; he, the same 
vis-a-vis me.

We are all doing our very best. Why not recognize that these issues can never 
been adjudicated objectively, decisively?

I get it now. I was fighting for something unwinnable. And I am sorry. Now, 
that is; after reading this second mood post.

If Barry will pretend to like me, I promise I will not try to strike back at 
him.

How did those women ever resist you, Curtis?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> 
> > No one can figure out what you just did, Curtis.>
> 
> 
> Only you, right? I know the drill.
> 
> Anyhoo I am working on a premise that we are all working in a more similar 
> than different way here.  We have different styles of expressing it. You are 
> gunna be more rope a dope with some people, Jim and Judy more aggressive.  
> But basically we have each sized each other up and there will be very little 
> openness  between certain people, no matter how it appears at first. 
> 
> I am trying to go post by post mirroring the openness or hostility.  It does 
> not work with Judy, has worked a bit with Jim in the past.  It has actually 
> worked best with Richard who I have shifted my view about, knowing full well 
> that he may let me have it in the next post.  Ravi too actually, and 
> certainly Ann and Buck who vacillate in how they relate to me. 
> 
> I am trying to let every post stand on its own without giving the highest 
> weight to the history.  With my strong views about the value of the spiritual 
> path I am always gunna get some version of disapproval from many poster here 
> from time to time, and I can accept that and even still like them, while 
> believing they are wrong.  Most of them just blow me off unless we are on a 
> non spiritual topic and I understand that.  I little of me on that topic goes 
> a long way.  
> 
> I have never gotten back to a trusting sincere space with you.  It's funny, I 
> was looking at some old posts from our beginning run and there was a comment 
> you made that at the time I think I took completely the wrong way.  You were 
> saying that the one thing I must never do is question your enlightenment in 
> the past.  I realized now that I thought you were being snarky and 
> self-effacing, making a joke about insisting that I take that seriously, you 
> know wink, wink, nudge, nudge style.  I thought it meant that you were beyond 
> taking that part of your life seriously.
> 
> In retrospect I suspect a lot of our initial rapport was based on this kind 
> of misread.  
> 
> And perhaps the same for you.  Maybe you read my denouncing spirituality as 
> more tongue in cheek than I meant it. Perhaps when you found out I really 
> don't believe in enlightenment in the way you do it was a shock too.
> 
> You know I wasn't punching you with my analysis of your take on Barry.  I 
> wasn't even denying that it was true for you.  My point was that your 
> subjective take was not more than that.  And there are other perceptual 
> positions that might also be valid for that person.
> 
> None of us is seeing the other clearly, we all have our choices of 
> interaction embedded in our history of communications here.  I wasn't just 
> "sticking up for Barry", that is irrelevant.  I was sharing my perspective 
> which was different from yours.  We are both entitled to our own views, we 
> earned them.   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > I had never considered the points you make, Curtis. I feel better about 
> > Barry now--and may I say this?
> > 
> > I wish I had not written that analysis. Little did I imagine it could be 
> > refuted so straightforwardly, so effectively.
> > 
> > I like how you smash against reality--your metaphysical punch here has 
> > caused the kind of intellectual concussion it was meant to deliver.
> > 
> > So, I was wrong about Barry. In hindsight I think my reaction to Barry was 
> > entirely based on the sense I had that, as you pointed out, he didn't like 
> > me much.
> > 
> > Right from the beginning.
> > 
> > That stung, and I had thought (forgetting about your moral firepower) to 
> > get my revenge here.
> > 
> > I have been answered, and now everyone can contemplate the fact: How was it 
> > that Robin's post was addressed with such devastating truthfulness as 
> > Curtis has now done, and left Robin to writhe in his embarrassment? For 
> > having given evidence of simple projection.
> > 
> > A very good post, Curtis: your sincerity and honesty in sticking up for 
> > Barry trumps--entirely trumps--the avowed

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[feste37]

Welcome back, MZ! Where have you been?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > > > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > > > > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> > > > > but after the course he became a complete asshole. 
> > > > 
> > > > Color me not surprised. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? 
> > > 
> > > Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to 
> > > you. But it seems that others have to work on it. 
> > 
> > You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-)
> > 
> > Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called
> > you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are.
> > You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain
> > WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just
> > played "Shoot the messenger." How cultist can one get?
> > Just sayin'...
> > 
> > If you disagree with something I said, try explaining
> > WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with,
> > or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would
> > do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying 
> > a grudge over something that real men would have gotten 
> > over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten
> > minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course.
> 
> Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong 
> opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective 
> experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the 
> reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is 
> mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, 
> how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he 
> envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against 
> all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on 
> this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on 
> stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a 
> victim of this singular method of provocation.
> 
> BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to 
> derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so 
> slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be 
> missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any 
> investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And 
> why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing 
> any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality and 
> the consciousness of other persons.
> 
> If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated 
> posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest 
> response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and 
> intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your 
> experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of 
> this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to 
> truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of truth. This becomes 
> the context out of which he writes: to generate an unnoticed vulnerability in 
> the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but anaesthetizes himself in the 
> very execution of this act such that only you are feeling and experiencing 
> anything at all. For BW makes sure he is feeling nothing. A zero.
> 
> What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense that 
> BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely 
> interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by how 
> much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You see, 
> BW plays against all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from reality 
> (reality here being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; reality 
> being the experience of BW of himself as he writes his opinion of some 
> controversial issue; reality being what actual reality might think about what 
> he has written) BW creates a context which makes those readers who are not 
> predetermined to approve of BW (no matter what he says) the perfect victim of 
> BW's systematic and controlled mind game.
> 
> BW relishes the fact that he knows that he has complete control over his 
> subjective experience of himself as he acts (action here constituting his 
> posts on FFL). In this sense: His subjectivity is entirely in the s

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[curtisdeltablues]

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

> No one can figure out what you just did, Curtis.>


Only you, right? I know the drill.

Anyhoo I am working on a premise that we are all working in a more similar than 
different way here.  We have different styles of expressing it. You are gunna 
be more rope a dope with some people, Jim and Judy more aggressive.  But 
basically we have each sized each other up and there will be very little 
openness  between certain people, no matter how it appears at first. 

I am trying to go post by post mirroring the openness or hostility.  It does 
not work with Judy, has worked a bit with Jim in the past.  It has actually 
worked best with Richard who I have shifted my view about, knowing full well 
that he may let me have it in the next post.  Ravi too actually, and certainly 
Ann and Buck who vacillate in how they relate to me. 

I am trying to let every post stand on its own without giving the highest 
weight to the history.  With my strong views about the value of the spiritual 
path I am always gunna get some version of disapproval from many poster here 
from time to time, and I can accept that and even still like them, while 
believing they are wrong.  Most of them just blow me off unless we are on a non 
spiritual topic and I understand that.  I little of me on that topic goes a 
long way.  

I have never gotten back to a trusting sincere space with you.  It's funny, I 
was looking at some old posts from our beginning run and there was a comment 
you made that at the time I think I took completely the wrong way.  You were 
saying that the one thing I must never do is question your enlightenment in the 
past.  I realized now that I thought you were being snarky and self-effacing, 
making a joke about insisting that I take that seriously, you know wink, wink, 
nudge, nudge style.  I thought it meant that you were beyond taking that part 
of your life seriously.

In retrospect I suspect a lot of our initial rapport was based on this kind of 
misread.  

And perhaps the same for you.  Maybe you read my denouncing spirituality as 
more tongue in cheek than I meant it. Perhaps when you found out I really don't 
believe in enlightenment in the way you do it was a shock too.

You know I wasn't punching you with my analysis of your take on Barry.  I 
wasn't even denying that it was true for you.  My point was that your 
subjective take was not more than that.  And there are other perceptual 
positions that might also be valid for that person.

None of us is seeing the other clearly, we all have our choices of interaction 
embedded in our history of communications here.  I wasn't just "sticking up for 
Barry", that is irrelevant.  I was sharing my perspective which was different 
from yours.  We are both entitled to our own views, we earned them.   





>
> I had never considered the points you make, Curtis. I feel better about Barry 
> now--and may I say this?
> 
> I wish I had not written that analysis. Little did I imagine it could be 
> refuted so straightforwardly, so effectively.
> 
> I like how you smash against reality--your metaphysical punch here has caused 
> the kind of intellectual concussion it was meant to deliver.
> 
> So, I was wrong about Barry. In hindsight I think my reaction to Barry was 
> entirely based on the sense I had that, as you pointed out, he didn't like me 
> much.
> 
> Right from the beginning.
> 
> That stung, and I had thought (forgetting about your moral firepower) to get 
> my revenge here.
> 
> I have been answered, and now everyone can contemplate the fact: How was it 
> that Robin's post was addressed with such devastating truthfulness as Curtis 
> has now done, and left Robin to writhe in his embarrassment? For having given 
> evidence of simple projection.
> 
> A very good post, Curtis: your sincerity and honesty in sticking up for Barry 
> trumps--entirely trumps--the avowed sincerity and honesty of my post about 
> Barry.
> 
> I never thought you would have the guts to stand up for Barry.
> 
> And that I could sneakily deceive all FFL readers into believing what I knew, 
> right from the start, was pure resentment and pique.
> 
> What is marvellous is the impression I get that your post, it cannot be 
> faulted.
> 
> Magic.
> 
> But I am glad you were moved by the profound sense of what you deemed the 
> critical implications for yourself, about leaving my BW post unanswered.
> 
> Your pride exceeds my love of what is true.
> 
> Our standoff here, it makes me sense the justification of death (assuming as 
> I do it will deal with this controversy-among other things).
> 
> No one can figure out what you just did, Curtis.
> 
> (But you will understand the psychological need I had to respond like this.)
> 
> Subjective ex cathedra.
> 
> Oh, and by the way: everything I said about Barry Wright is true, and your 
> post underscores this.
> 
> Kidding.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  
> > He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he 
> > does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack 
> > him, but not always. He didn't like you right off.  
> 
> That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day
> One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force 
> myself to plow through his bloviated language. He 
> still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting 
> Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 
> 10 words and realized who it was from the shitty 
> writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm 
> the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not
> and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to
> waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-)

You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain
WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just
played "Shoot the messenger." 
Just sayin'...

If you disagree with something I said, try explaining
WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with,
or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would
do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying
a grudge over something that real men would have gotten
over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten
minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course.

 
> > So you only see the version of Barry that applies to 
> > you, a person he does not respect.
> 
> This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would
> say, "a person he barely acknowledges the existence of." :-)
> 
> BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. 
> The combination of you being present and his primary 
> devotee and groupie not being present this week was 
> too tempting for him to resist. :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Robin Carlsen]

I had never considered the points you make, Curtis. I feel better about Barry 
now--and may I say this?

I wish I had not written that analysis. Little did I imagine it could be 
refuted so straightforwardly, so effectively.

I like how you smash against reality--your metaphysical punch here has caused 
the kind of intellectual concussion it was meant to deliver.

So, I was wrong about Barry. In hindsight I think my reaction to Barry was 
entirely based on the sense I had that, as you pointed out, he didn't like me 
much.

Right from the beginning.

That stung, and I had thought (forgetting about your moral firepower) to get my 
revenge here.

I have been answered, and now everyone can contemplate the fact: How was it 
that Robin's post was addressed with such devastating truthfulness as Curtis 
has now done, and left Robin to writhe in his embarrassment? For having given 
evidence of simple projection.

A very good post, Curtis: your sincerity and honesty in sticking up for Barry 
trumps--entirely trumps--the avowed sincerity and honesty of my post about 
Barry.

I never thought you would have the guts to stand up for Barry.

And that I could sneakily deceive all FFL readers into believing what I knew, 
right from the start, was pure resentment and pique.

What is marvellous is the impression I get that your post, it cannot be faulted.

Magic.

But I am glad you were moved by the profound sense of what you deemed the 
critical implications for yourself, about leaving my BW post unanswered.

Your pride exceeds my love of what is true.

Our standoff here, it makes me sense the justification of death (assuming as I 
do it will deal with this controversy-among other things).

No one can figure out what you just did, Curtis.

(But you will understand the psychological need I had to respond like this.)

Subjective ex cathedra.

Oh, and by the way: everything I said about Barry Wright is true, and your post 
underscores this.

Kidding.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> 
> Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  He is not open to 
> being vulnerable to people who he does not like.  Sometimes this is people 
> who attack him, but not always.  He didn't like you right off.  So you only 
> see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect.
> 
> 
> > BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, 
> > to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he 
> > so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be 
> > missed) argues for his position.>
> 
> The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?)  I don't believe he sees any reason 
> to share anything with people he does not like or respect. He just calls it 
> as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a dialogue, 
> they are just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than conversation.
> 
> If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they often 
> have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting or 
> liking.  I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to your 
> perspective.  If a new poster showed up here today I could probably predict 
> with good accuracy how Barry would react to them.  It was easy to predict 
> that you were not gunna be friends. 
> 
> So your statements probably do apply to you.  You may not have the ability to 
> see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you.  Do you see Judy as 
> any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting with a person when 
> she is doing her Judy thing?  Are you or me for that matter?  Once we size 
> someone up as not being worth the trouble, or that they are openly hostile 
> toward us, we all shut down the two way conversation and might say something 
> with no intention to be open to that person. 
> 
> I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each other 
> space to express our opinions even if we differ.  So we get along based on 
> liking each other and trusting that the other person is not gunna send out 
> some version of what you just wrote.  I've received enough of them myself 
> from you to know that me writing this is not going to enter your 
> consciousness beyond your reflexive attack mode.
> 
> Or you can prove me wrong. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > > > > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > > > > > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> > > > > > but after the 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[feste37]

Just pushing your buttons, Turq. Looks like it worked!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > > > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> > > > but after the course he became a complete asshole. 
> > > 
> > > Color me not surprised. :-)
> > > 
> > > Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? 
> > 
> > Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to 
> > you. But it seems that others have to work on it. 
> 
> You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-)
> 
> Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called
> you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are.
> You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain
> WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just
> played "Shoot the messenger." How cultist can one get?
> Just sayin'...
> 
> If you disagree with something I said, try explaining
> WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with,
> or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would
> do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying 
> a grudge over something that real men would have gotten 
> over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten
> minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course.
> 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 
> > > > > 90's.  I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going).  I 
> > > > > ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the 
> > > > > whole group.  It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a 
> > > > > modern american male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition 
> > > > > from boyhood to manhood, etc...).  The whole weekend is about a lot 
> > > > > of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak 
> > > > > and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America.  It was 
> > > > > a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it.  
> > > > > Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of 
> > > > > perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often 
> > > > > justified by modern American males to avoid altogether.
> > > > > 
> > > > > However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a 
> > > > > cult'.  Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but 
> > > > > now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group.  I found 
> > > > > that a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial 
> > > > > things that were just NOT a part of their character.  It was usually 
> > > > > to display some masculinity or manliness.  There were so many of them 
> > > > > that would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were 
> > > > > tough their entire life.  The intensity of their recruiting efforts 
> > > > > was borderline psychotic.  I honestly believe that only a sociopath 
> > > > > could remain in that group without any serious conflict with others.  
> > > > > Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same 
> > > > > perceptions that I had of it.  However, we all agreed it (the weekend 
> > > > > seminar) changed our lives for the better.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all 
> > > > > nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive 
> > > > > decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official 
> > > > > representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'.  I'm not sure why, but 
> > > > > I think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was 
> > > > > seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to 
> > > > > other groups in the rest of the nation.  He was probably right.  A 
> > > > > lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of 
> > > > > spirituality or new-agism.  And if you take someone like that and 
> > > > > latch them onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes 
> > > > > through the roof.
> > > > > 
> > > > > All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some 
> > > > > people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group 
> > > > > activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it).  It was 
> > > > > a major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't 
> > > > > want anything to do with them anymore.  It's worse than trying to 
> > > > > tell a military recruiter that you changed your mind�..literally.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > seekliberation
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhr

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  
> He is not open to being vulnerable to people who he 
> does not like. Sometimes this is people who attack 
> him, but not always. He didn't like you right off.  

That's not quite correct. Robin struck me from Day
One as someone so uninteresting that I couldn't force 
myself to plow through his bloviated language. He 
still does. I clicked on this post of his by hitting 
Next on the previous one, read no more than the first 
10 words and realized who it was from the shitty 
writing, and only then looked up at the top to confirm 
the sender. At that point, I hit Next again. I do not
and will not apologize for this. Life's too short to
waste on pissants, especially wordy ones. :-)

> So you only see the version of Barry that applies to 
> you, a person he does not respect.

This is more correct, although to be accurate, I would
say, "a person he barely acknowledges the existence of." :-)

BTW, I *expected* him to make a reappearance about now. 
The combination of you being present and his primary 
devotee and groupie not being present this week was 
too tempting for him to resist. :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[doctordumbass]

Wow, Ethel*, you really know Fred well. Figures, you're married to him...

*Murtz, from the I Love Lucy show.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> 
> Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  He is not open to 
> being vulnerable to people who he does not like.  Sometimes this is people 
> who attack him, but not always.  He didn't like you right off.  So you only 
> see the version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect.
> 
> 
> > BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, 
> > to derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he 
> > so slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be 
> > missed) argues for his position.>
> 
> The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?)  I don't believe he sees any reason 
> to share anything with people he does not like or respect. He just calls it 
> as he sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a dialogue, 
> they are just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than conversation.
> 
> If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they often 
> have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting or 
> liking.  I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to your 
> perspective.  If a new poster showed up here today I could probably predict 
> with good accuracy how Barry would react to them.  It was easy to predict 
> that you were not gunna be friends. 
> 
> So your statements probably do apply to you.  You may not have the ability to 
> see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you.  Do you see Judy as 
> any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting with a person when 
> she is doing her Judy thing?  Are you or me for that matter?  Once we size 
> someone up as not being worth the trouble, or that they are openly hostile 
> toward us, we all shut down the two way conversation and might say something 
> with no intention to be open to that person. 
> 
> I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each other 
> space to express our opinions even if we differ.  So we get along based on 
> liking each other and trusting that the other person is not gunna send out 
> some version of what you just wrote.  I've received enough of them myself 
> from you to know that me writing this is not going to enter your 
> consciousness beyond your reflexive attack mode.
> 
> Or you can prove me wrong. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > > > > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > > > > > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> > > > > > but after the course he became a complete asshole. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Color me not surprised. :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? 
> > > > 
> > > > Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to 
> > > > you. But it seems that others have to work on it. 
> > > 
> > > You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-)
> > > 
> > > Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called
> > > you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are.
> > > You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain
> > > WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just
> > > played "Shoot the messenger." How cultist can one get?
> > > Just sayin'...
> > > 
> > > If you disagree with something I said, try explaining
> > > WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with,
> > > or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would
> > > do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying 
> > > a grudge over something that real men would have gotten 
> > > over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten
> > > minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course.
> > 
> > Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong 
> > opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective 
> > experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even 
> > the reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is 
> > mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, 
> > how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he 
> > envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays 
> > against all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he 
> > lines up on this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main 
> > focus is on

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's]
> > > > lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution.  Looked at
> > > > as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by
> > > > only a small subset of the larger community.  Nothing was said that
> > > > could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with 
> > > my life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and 
> > > unable to attend.
> > 
> > 
> > 9PM is truly impressive, a goal I could never achieve even on Purusha now 
> > using living in a city as a lame excuse. When then do you rise ?
> >
> 
> Depends on how quickly I fall asleep and whether my sleep is interrupted 
> during the night. In a perfect night, I sleep ~7 hours straight. So, if I 
> fall quickly to sleep and don't wake up during the night, I'll get up between 
> 4 and 5 am. Most of the time, I get up between 5 and 6 am. On crappy sleep 
> nights, I get up at 7 am; regardless of how little or crappy my sleep is, my 
> body won't really sleep beyond 7 am.
> 
> Needless to say, this isn't a TM/Vedic thing for me. I'm a naturally 
> hard-wired morning person, and going to bed early greatly improves my quality 
> of life.


For me obviously it's both :-) 

Getting up at 5AM is a true blessing. Last time in Paris I hit the streets at 
5.30 every day just when the cafees had their only hourly break for cleening. 
For natural reasons the Turq never experienced this, but the cafe life from 6AM 
is unique, those that stay open that is. Since they don't have the cleening 
hour at the same time you'll have plenty cafees open with regulars coming in 
for morning coffee and those who stayed up all night partying or just flirting 
sitting side by side giving you an interesting view of the different lives.  
And the light obviously has a completely different and more glorious quality 
than later in the day, no matter where you are on the globe. 

And if you travel with a woman who likes to sleep late, viola !, you have 
several hours by yourself free to do as you please and free from shopping ! 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[curtisdeltablues]

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

Your analysis might apply to people he does not like.  He is not open to being 
vulnerable to people who he does not like.  Sometimes this is people who attack 
him, but not always.  He didn't like you right off.  So you only see the 
version of Barry that applies to you, a person he does not respect.


> BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to 
> derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so 
> slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be 
> missed) argues for his position.>

The digs aside (slovenly? insincerely?)  I don't believe he sees any reason to 
share anything with people he does not like or respect. He just calls it as he 
sees it and moves on. His blasts are not an opening for a dialogue, they are 
just projections of his POV, more writing exercise than conversation.

If you look at the list of people who have received such attention they often 
have some similar traits that Barry is outspoken about not respecting or 
liking.  I have a very good idea of his POV from his pieces contrary to your 
perspective.  If a new poster showed up here today I could probably predict 
with good accuracy how Barry would react to them.  It was easy to predict that 
you were not gunna be friends. 

So your statements probably do apply to you.  You may not have the ability to 
see where he is coming from and he seems hidden from you.  Do you see Judy as 
any more vulnerable and interested in really interacting with a person when she 
is doing her Judy thing?  Are you or me for that matter?  Once we size someone 
up as not being worth the trouble, or that they are openly hostile toward us, 
we all shut down the two way conversation and might say something with no 
intention to be open to that person. 

I see him just fine. And with me it is a two way street of giving each other 
space to express our opinions even if we differ.  So we get along based on 
liking each other and trusting that the other person is not gunna send out some 
version of what you just wrote.  I've received enough of them myself from you 
to know that me writing this is not going to enter your consciousness beyond 
your reflexive attack mode.

Or you can prove me wrong. 









>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > > > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > > > > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> > > > > but after the course he became a complete asshole. 
> > > > 
> > > > Color me not surprised. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? 
> > > 
> > > Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to 
> > > you. But it seems that others have to work on it. 
> > 
> > You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-)
> > 
> > Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called
> > you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are.
> > You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain
> > WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just
> > played "Shoot the messenger." How cultist can one get?
> > Just sayin'...
> > 
> > If you disagree with something I said, try explaining
> > WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with,
> > or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would
> > do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying 
> > a grudge over something that real men would have gotten 
> > over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten
> > minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course.
> 
> Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong 
> opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective 
> experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the 
> reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is 
> mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, 
> how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he 
> envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against 
> all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on 
> this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on 
> stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a 
> victim of this singular method of provocation.
> 
> BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to 
> derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so 
> slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be 
> missed) argues 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Richard J. Williams]

Robin Carlsen:
> Here is BW's secret...
>
So, it's all about Barry.

"Uncle Tantra (UT) is suffering from acute Narcissism.  
Because he dropped-out of both TM and Rama's program he 
needs to "rewrite" history and trash religious groups 
that he once belonged to.  Yet at the same time he needs
to "show-off" to current "followers" and write spiritual 
essays of the same teachers he trashes in private.  By
engaging in this neurotic contradiction any personal 
failures are covered-up by UT's dual positions.  Uncle 
Tantra's ego can instead present to others the image he 
clings to: a great writer, an advanced spiritual seeker 
that has gone into "Samadhi", and the hip 60's Jungian 
wise-old man persona that he so pathetically attempts 
to cultivate in his ramblings and even through his name 
'Uncle Tantra'..." 

Read more:

 Subject: Trashing Rama - An analysis
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Author: Garuda
Date: Wed, May 7 2003 3:39 pm
http://tinyurl.com/2edw8k 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[doctordumbass]

I can sum up BW's secret in two words, Robin: Control freak.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > > > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > > > > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> > > > > but after the course he became a complete asshole. 
> > > > 
> > > > Color me not surprised. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? 
> > > 
> > > Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to 
> > > you. But it seems that others have to work on it. 
> > 
> > You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-)
> > 
> > Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called
> > you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are.
> > You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain
> > WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just
> > played "Shoot the messenger." How cultist can one get?
> > Just sayin'...
> > 
> > If you disagree with something I said, try explaining
> > WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with,
> > or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would
> > do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying 
> > a grudge over something that real men would have gotten 
> > over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten
> > minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course.
> 
> Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong 
> opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective 
> experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the 
> reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is 
> mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, 
> how he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he 
> envisages he will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against 
> all these forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on 
> this contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on 
> stimulating the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a 
> victim of this singular method of provocation.
> 
> BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to 
> derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so 
> slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be 
> missed) argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any 
> investment in or commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And 
> why is this? Because he excludes from his experience in the act of writing 
> any possible feedback he might get from himself as he writes into reality and 
> the consciousness of other persons.
> 
> If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated 
> posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest 
> response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and 
> intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your 
> experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of 
> this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to 
> truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of truth. This becomes 
> the context out of which he writes: to generate an unnoticed vulnerability in 
> the reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but anaesthetizes himself in the 
> very execution of this act such that only you are feeling and experiencing 
> anything at all. For BW makes sure he is feeling nothing. A zero.
> 
> What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense that 
> BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely 
> interested he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by how 
> much he cares about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You see, 
> BW plays against all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from reality 
> (reality here being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; reality 
> being the experience of BW of himself as he writes his opinion of some 
> controversial issue; reality being what actual reality might think about what 
> he has written) BW creates a context which makes those readers who are not 
> predetermined to approve of BW (no matter what he says) the perfect victim of 
> BW's systematic and controlled mind game.
> 
> BW relishes the fact that he knows that he has complete control over his 
> subjective experience of himself as he acts (action here constituting his 
> posts on FFL). In this sense: His subjectivit

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Richard J. Williams]

turquoiseb:
> These are seminars offered by someone *promoting*
> duality, and making their money from the idea that
> men and women are so fundamentally different that
> they can't communicate without external help. 
>
Thanks for this information, but you used to love 
paying for seminars and paying to go on TTCs and CPs 
with Rama - what happened? Are you still paying to 
keep that Rama site up? Go figure.

Excerpt:

Interviewer: Why did you decide to write a book?
Uncle Tantra: "I had nothing better to do that day." 

http://www.ramalila.com/

Uncle Tantra:  

Sasquatch takes pictures of him.
He ran a marathon because it was on his way.
He can share insider jokes to with total strangers.

He is the most interesting man on the planet!

> As the bumper sticker says so well, "Men are from 
> Earth, women are from Earth...get over it." 

P.S. Actually neither men nor women are from Earth,
since we're all made out of stardust, everything on
the planet is from somewhere else in the universe. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[doctordumbass]

If you notice in the media too, all of the articles that tell you how to: Lose 
Weight, Get A Better Job, How To Manage Your Money And Avoid Scams, etc. are 
all written from a victim's perspective. Constantly reinforcing the idea, the 
fear, that the world is overwhelming and we better step it up and learn from 
the experts. Even the values adopted by the so called outlaws like Barry - 
jaywalking, stealing movies, railing about cults, are all pathetic and impotent 
moves within the social slavery they supposedly confront.

The only way to true freedom is through self awareness. "The world is as you 
are. Live unbounded awareness" - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > It's like when I read FFL and see all these long-term
> > TMers so focused on their health problems and their
> > healers and talking about them non-stop and I have to 
> > think, "WTF? *These* are people who claim that TM 
> > produces 'perfect health?'" Well, when I read about 
> > people who need a fuckin' seminar to figure out what 
> > it is to be a man or a woman I have a similar reaction. 
> > 
> > I liked Robert Bly as a poet, but his whole Man thang
> > just left me completely cold and struck me as whining
> > back when I first heard about it, decades ago -- a bunch
> > of men sitting around a campfire pounding drums to get
> > over their Daddy issues. The whole concept *still* 
> > strikes me as ludicrous. 
> 
> I agree that a lot of the rituals that some of these groups use are nothing 
> more than mood-making rituals rather than the actual experience that enables 
> individuals to get past whatever issues they have.  However, after reading 
> some works of Robert Bly and viewing my own experiences in life combined with 
> what I experienced at the Sterling Men's weekend, I do agree that some 
> education or view of problems with boys/men in America needs to be pointed 
> out.  But the process of dealing with whatever boundaries someone has towards 
> becoming a mature adult is too personal for group practice to accomodate, 
> IMHO.
> 
> > 
> > WHO, ferchrissakes, needs to be told by some seminar
> > leader *making money from it* how to be a man or a 
> > woman, and what that entails? The very *concept* is
> > IMO designed for those who have been trained over the
> > years to pay for *everything* associated with self
> > discovery or fulfillment. 
> 
> That was another reason myself and another member of the whole 'Sterling' 
> institute left.  We saw a real Ponzi scheme going on.  We pay $500 to go 
> there for a weekend, then we work tirelessly at recruiting more people to go 
> there.  We put forth all the effort, and someone else is making all the 
> money.  Damn that's clever!  Or maybe it's not clever; they're just doing 
> what people always do.
> 
> But on the other hand, I still maintain the stance that what is taught at 
> that weekend is necessary for 'some' young men these days.  And I wouldn't 
> say it's all 'daddy' issues, or overcoming emotional pain from upbringing 
> (although that comes up).  It's a bit more of a clear look at what a mature & 
> self-sufficent man should be, and a reality check at how much we (or at least 
> some men) really suck at it these days.  But i've met a lot of men that 
> simply DON'T need that experience or to have these problems pointed out.  Yet 
> for some reason the stance of Sterling Institute is that you should 
> relentlessly try to recruit everyone.  It's literally worse than being a 
> Christian Evangelist.  
> 
> > 
> > These are seminars offered by someone *promoting*
> > duality, and making their money from the idea that
> > men and women are so fundamentally different that
> > they can't communicate without external help. As
> > the bumper sticker says so well, "Men are from Earth,
> > women are from Earth...get over it."
> 
> That reminds me of a conversation I had with someone when I was at the 
> 'weekend'.  There was a lot of talk regarding differences between men and 
> women.  There was also the implication that men were simply NOT capable of 
> certain things, which myself and the other guy disagreed with.  
> 
> But at the same time, America has moved into a rather strange social era 
> where becoming a mature and self-sufficient man is not only decreasing among 
> our populace, but it is often discouraged.  I don't think there is any way we 
> can deny this, but you can offer a different POV if you like.  
> 
> The whole point of some of these seminars is to address this disturbing 
> issue.  They are effective to some extent, albeit they end up going astray 
> very quickly and get caught up in a lot of bullshit that I think is 
> manufactured and effective for only a small percentage of participants.  In 
> the end, my conclusion is that there is something critical missing from boys 
> and young men's lives that is preventing them f

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > > > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> > > > but after the course he became a complete asshole. 
> > > 
> > > Color me not surprised. :-)
> > > 
> > > Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? 
> > 
> > Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to 
> > you. But it seems that others have to work on it. 
> 
> You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-)
> 
> Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called
> you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are.
> You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain
> WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just
> played "Shoot the messenger." How cultist can one get?
> Just sayin'...
> 
> If you disagree with something I said, try explaining
> WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with,
> or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would
> do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying 
> a grudge over something that real men would have gotten 
> over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten
> minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course.

Here is BW's secret. Whereas almost everyone else when expressing a strong 
opinion about a controversial topic reveals their personal and subjective 
experience of themselves when they do this--even if that person (and even the 
reader) is unaware of this fact,--BW eliminates any concern--this is 
mathematical--about himself (whether what he is saying he really believes, how 
he experiences his relationship to what is true, how successful he envisages he 
will be when others read what he has written). BW plays against all these 
forces. He knows he will outrage and offend persons: he lines up on this 
contingency and makes sure that as he writes his main focus is on stimulating 
the frustration and disapproval in those readers who will be a victim of this 
singular method of provocation.

BW, then, does not allow the reader, either consciously or unconsciously, to 
derive any experience of what kind of experience BW must be having as he so 
slovenly and insincerely (the latter is quite subtle and can easily be missed) 
argues for his position. But note: BW cannot really have any investment in or 
commitment to anything he says by way of controversy. And why is this? Because 
he excludes from his experience in the act of writing any possible feedback he 
might get from himself as he writes into reality and the consciousness of other 
persons.

If you examine your experience of reading one of BW's intensely opinionated 
posts you will realize that BW is making himself immune to your very deepest 
response to what he is saying. You are put in a kind of psychological and 
intellectual vacuum as you sense that BW not only will ignore your 
experience--and possible response--but that he is actually acutely aware of 
this very phenomenon: that he can be heedless of any responsibility to 
truth--to his sense of truth, to the reader's sense of truth. This becomes the 
context out of which he writes: to generate an unnoticed vulnerability in the 
reader as he [BW] writes out his opinion but anaesthetizes himself in the very 
execution of this act such that only you are feeling and experiencing anything 
at all. For BW makes sure he is feeling nothing. A zero.

What this means is that BW deprives the reader of any subconscious sense that 
BW is in any way responsible for being judged by both how sincerely interested 
he is in doing justice to what he thinks the truth is, and by how much he cares 
about what the reader thinks about how sincere he is. You see, BW plays against 
all this, and out of this deliberate insulation from reality (reality here 
being the experience of the reader reading BW's post; reality being the 
experience of BW of himself as he writes his opinion of some controversial 
issue; reality being what actual reality might think about what he has written) 
BW creates a context which makes those readers who are not predetermined to 
approve of BW (no matter what he says) the perfect victim of BW's systematic 
and controlled mind game.

BW relishes the fact that he knows that he has complete control over his 
subjective experience of himself as he acts (action here constituting his posts 
on FFL). In this sense: His subjectivity is entirely in the service of 
producing the particular effect he is seeking in those readers whom he knows 
are the innocent registrars of their experience--this is, as I have stipulated, 
likely to be unconscious or subconscious. For everyone else but BW has to bear 
the consequences of their de

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[seekliberation]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> It's like when I read FFL and see all these long-term
> TMers so focused on their health problems and their
> healers and talking about them non-stop and I have to 
> think, "WTF? *These* are people who claim that TM 
> produces 'perfect health?'" Well, when I read about 
> people who need a fuckin' seminar to figure out what 
> it is to be a man or a woman I have a similar reaction. 
> 
> I liked Robert Bly as a poet, but his whole Man thang
> just left me completely cold and struck me as whining
> back when I first heard about it, decades ago -- a bunch
> of men sitting around a campfire pounding drums to get
> over their Daddy issues. The whole concept *still* 
> strikes me as ludicrous. 

I agree that a lot of the rituals that some of these groups use are nothing 
more than mood-making rituals rather than the actual experience that enables 
individuals to get past whatever issues they have.  However, after reading some 
works of Robert Bly and viewing my own experiences in life combined with what I 
experienced at the Sterling Men's weekend, I do agree that some education or 
view of problems with boys/men in America needs to be pointed out.  But the 
process of dealing with whatever boundaries someone has towards becoming a 
mature adult is too personal for group practice to accomodate, IMHO.

> 
> WHO, ferchrissakes, needs to be told by some seminar
> leader *making money from it* how to be a man or a 
> woman, and what that entails? The very *concept* is
> IMO designed for those who have been trained over the
> years to pay for *everything* associated with self
> discovery or fulfillment. 

That was another reason myself and another member of the whole 'Sterling' 
institute left.  We saw a real Ponzi scheme going on.  We pay $500 to go there 
for a weekend, then we work tirelessly at recruiting more people to go there.  
We put forth all the effort, and someone else is making all the money.  Damn 
that's clever!  Or maybe it's not clever; they're just doing what people always 
do.

But on the other hand, I still maintain the stance that what is taught at that 
weekend is necessary for 'some' young men these days.  And I wouldn't say it's 
all 'daddy' issues, or overcoming emotional pain from upbringing (although that 
comes up).  It's a bit more of a clear look at what a mature & self-sufficent 
man should be, and a reality check at how much we (or at least some men) really 
suck at it these days.  But i've met a lot of men that simply DON'T need that 
experience or to have these problems pointed out.  Yet for some reason the 
stance of Sterling Institute is that you should relentlessly try to recruit 
everyone.  It's literally worse than being a Christian Evangelist.  

> 
> These are seminars offered by someone *promoting*
> duality, and making their money from the idea that
> men and women are so fundamentally different that
> they can't communicate without external help. As
> the bumper sticker says so well, "Men are from Earth,
> women are from Earth...get over it."

That reminds me of a conversation I had with someone when I was at the 
'weekend'.  There was a lot of talk regarding differences between men and 
women.  There was also the implication that men were simply NOT capable of 
certain things, which myself and the other guy disagreed with.  

But at the same time, America has moved into a rather strange social era where 
becoming a mature and self-sufficient man is not only decreasing among our 
populace, but it is often discouraged.  I don't think there is any way we can 
deny this, but you can offer a different POV if you like.  

The whole point of some of these seminars is to address this disturbing issue.  
They are effective to some extent, albeit they end up going astray very quickly 
and get caught up in a lot of bullshit that I think is manufactured and 
effective for only a small percentage of participants.  In the end, my 
conclusion is that there is something critical missing from boys and young 
men's lives that is preventing them from becoming a man.  At least there is 
'something' out there trying to address it.  The only alternative is to ignore 
it and let it get worse.  

But then again, i've always said that anytime you create an organization, the 
moment the organization is created it eventually begins to establish patterns 
of thought and behaviour that are contradictory to the original intentions of 
the organization in the first place.  That's why I felt reading a book or 
attending a weekend is not a bad idea, provided someone needs it.  But the 
whole group/social club thing, I saw serious problems with it.  That whole 
Sterling group in FF had an entire thought-process that was identical from one 
man to the next.  Eventually, nobody seemed to be able to think independantly 
at all.  It was pretty bad, and that's why I wanted nothing to do with it.

seekliberation  
 
> 
> 
> > --- In Fairfi

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[doctordumbass]

Ah, Barry's old ask for an explanation in an attempt to seem rational -- not 
that he ever responds to them...

What feste37 meant was that you have been exposed to spiritual traditions often 
enough to understand their basis, but your actual experience has never matched 
up. Result? A lot of pressure on you to conform your actions to match those in 
spiritual traditions you respect. Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

The conflict it causes within you, has made you a natural asshole. Get it? 
Everyone else on here does. :-) 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > > > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> > > > but after the course he became a complete asshole. 
> > > 
> > > Color me not surprised. :-)
> > > 
> > > Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? 
> > 
> > Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to 
> > you. But it seems that others have to work on it. 
> 
> You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-)
> 
> Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called
> you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are.
> You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain
> WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just
> played "Shoot the messenger." How cultist can one get?
> Just sayin'...
> 
> If you disagree with something I said, try explaining
> WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with,
> or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would
> do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying 
> a grudge over something that real men would have gotten 
> over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten
> minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course.
> 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 
> > > > > 90's.  I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going).  I 
> > > > > ended up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the 
> > > > > whole group.  It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a 
> > > > > modern american male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition 
> > > > > from boyhood to manhood, etc...).  The whole weekend is about a lot 
> > > > > of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak 
> > > > > and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America.  It was 
> > > > > a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it.  
> > > > > Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of 
> > > > > perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often 
> > > > > justified by modern American males to avoid altogether.
> > > > > 
> > > > > However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a 
> > > > > cult'.  Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but 
> > > > > now they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group.  I found 
> > > > > that a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial 
> > > > > things that were just NOT a part of their character.  It was usually 
> > > > > to display some masculinity or manliness.  There were so many of them 
> > > > > that would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were 
> > > > > tough their entire life.  The intensity of their recruiting efforts 
> > > > > was borderline psychotic.  I honestly believe that only a sociopath 
> > > > > could remain in that group without any serious conflict with others.  
> > > > > Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same 
> > > > > perceptions that I had of it.  However, we all agreed it (the weekend 
> > > > > seminar) changed our lives for the better.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all 
> > > > > nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive 
> > > > > decision to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official 
> > > > > representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'.  I'm not sure why, but 
> > > > > I think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was 
> > > > > seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to 
> > > > > other groups in the rest of the nation.  He was probably right.  A 
> > > > > lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of 
> > > > > spirituality or new-agism.  And if you take someone like that and 
> > > > > latch them onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes 
> > > > > through the roof.
> > > > > 
> > > > > All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some 
> > > > >

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> > >
> > > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> > > but after the course he became a complete asshole. 
> > 
> > Color me not surprised. :-)
> > 
> > Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? 
> 
> Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to 
> you. But it seems that others have to work on it. 

You seem to be doing just fine without the training. :-)

Seriously dude, are you still smarting because I called
you on acting like a cultist? You were. You still are.
You didn't challenge anything I said, you didn't explain
WHY you felt the need to deliver an insult, you just
played "Shoot the messenger." How cultist can one get?
Just sayin'...

If you disagree with something I said, try explaining
WHY, or try dealing with the content you disagreed with,
or do something more like a...dare I say it?...man would
do. Just slinging insults as if you were still carrying 
a grudge over something that real men would have gotten 
over within five minutes and wouldn't remember after ten
minutes is not really working well for you. IMO, of course.

> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 
> > > > 90's.  I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going).  I ended 
> > > > up going to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group. 
> > > >  It's actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american 
> > > > male (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to 
> > > > manhood, etc...).  The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but 
> > > > primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men 
> > > > are becoming decade after decade in America.  It was a kind of 
> > > > eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it.  Othwerwise, I 
> > > > do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of perpetual 
> > > > abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by 
> > > > modern American males to avoid altogether.
> > > > 
> > > > However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a 
> > > > cult'.  Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now 
> > > > they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group.  I found that 
> > > > a lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things 
> > > > that were just NOT a part of their character.  It was usually to 
> > > > display some masculinity or manliness.  There were so many of them that 
> > > > would all of a sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough 
> > > > their entire life.  The intensity of their recruiting efforts was 
> > > > borderline psychotic.  I honestly believe that only a sociopath could 
> > > > remain in that group without any serious conflict with others.  Many 
> > > > men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same 
> > > > perceptions that I had of it.  However, we all agreed it (the weekend 
> > > > seminar) changed our lives for the better.
> > > > 
> > > > The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all 
> > > > nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision 
> > > > to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official 
> > > > representation of the 'Sterling Men's Group'.  I'm not sure why, but I 
> > > > think that the leader of the whole gig felt that something was 
> > > > seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in comparison to 
> > > > other groups in the rest of the nation.  He was probably right.  A lot 
> > > > of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality 
> > > > or new-agism.  And if you take someone like that and latch them onto 
> > > > another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof.
> > > > 
> > > > All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some 
> > > > people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group 
> > > > activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it).  It was a 
> > > > major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want 
> > > > anything to do with them anymore.  It's worse than trying to tell a 
> > > > military recruiter that you changed your mind�..literally.  
> > > > 
> > > > seekliberation
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > I am guessing that this is carry over from the "Mens" movement thing
> > > > > from some time ago.  Was it Sterling, or something?  I guess I could
> > > > > look it up.  But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good
> > > > > frien

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> > but after the course he became a complete asshole. 
> 
> Color me not surprised. :-)
> 
> Like men need TRAINING to be assholes?  

Still the best commentary ever on the "Man's Movement"
(or at least one aspect of it), as delivered by Tom 
Cruise (hey, I know you don't like him, but he *has*
done good work, and he was nominated for an Oscar for 
this performance, possibly for doing little more than 
acting like the asshole he is in real life), in "Magnolia." 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n2IVF9a2IA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCEYxs7kWmQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-q__knBahs


> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's.  
> > > I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going).  I ended up going 
> > > to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group.  It's 
> > > actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male 
> > > (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, 
> > > etc...).  The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what 
> > > I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming 
> > > decade after decade in America.  It was a kind of eye-opening experience 
> > > for me, and i'm thankful for it.  Othwerwise, I do believe I would've 
> > > continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility 
> > > and growth that is often justified by modern American males to avoid 
> > > altogether.
> > > 
> > > However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a 
> > > cult'.  Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now 
> > > they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group.  I found that a 
> > > lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that 
> > > were just NOT a part of their character.  It was usually to display some 
> > > masculinity or manliness.  There were so many of them that would all of a 
> > > sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life.  
> > > The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic.  I 
> > > honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without 
> > > any serious conflict with others.  Many men who were part of it 
> > > eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it.  
> > > However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the 
> > > better.
> > > 
> > > The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all 
> > > nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision 
> > > to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation 
> > > of the 'Sterling Men's Group'.  I'm not sure why, but I think that the 
> > > leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the 
> > > men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of 
> > > the nation.  He was probably right.  A lot of these men were fanatics 
> > > about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism.  And if you 
> > > take someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's 
> > > like the fanatacism goes through the roof.
> > > 
> > > All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some 
> > > people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group 
> > > activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it).  It was a 
> > > major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want 
> > > anything to do with them anymore.  It's worse than trying to tell a 
> > > military recruiter that you changed your mind�..literally.  
> > > 
> > > seekliberation
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > I am guessing that this is carry over from the "Mens" movement thing
> > > > from some time ago.  Was it Sterling, or something?  I guess I could
> > > > look it up.  But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good
> > > > friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to
> > > > participate or something.  It was awkward for him, and it was awkward
> > > > for me.  But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics
> > > > you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and the FF
> > > > guy was doing his thing on the phone.  But then, as now, I didn't care
> > > > to get recruited to a new group.
> > > > 
> > > > And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his blatant
> > > > manipulation.  He just wouldn't take no for an answer.
> > > > 
> > > > Who knows, maybe I 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[feste37]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> > a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> > the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> > but after the course he became a complete asshole. 
> 
> Color me not surprised. :-)
> 
> Like men need TRAINING to be assholes? 

Well, in your case, no. Obviously. It comes naturally to you. But it seems that 
others have to work on it. 
 
> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's.  
> > > I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going).  I ended up going 
> > > to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group.  It's 
> > > actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male 
> > > (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, 
> > > etc...).  The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what 
> > > I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming 
> > > decade after decade in America.  It was a kind of eye-opening experience 
> > > for me, and i'm thankful for it.  Othwerwise, I do believe I would've 
> > > continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility 
> > > and growth that is often justified by modern American males to avoid 
> > > altogether.
> > > 
> > > However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a 
> > > cult'.  Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now 
> > > they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group.  I found that a 
> > > lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that 
> > > were just NOT a part of their character.  It was usually to display some 
> > > masculinity or manliness.  There were so many of them that would all of a 
> > > sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life.  
> > > The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic.  I 
> > > honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without 
> > > any serious conflict with others.  Many men who were part of it 
> > > eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it.  
> > > However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the 
> > > better.
> > > 
> > > The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all 
> > > nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision 
> > > to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation 
> > > of the 'Sterling Men's Group'.  I'm not sure why, but I think that the 
> > > leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the 
> > > men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of 
> > > the nation.  He was probably right.  A lot of these men were fanatics 
> > > about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism.  And if you 
> > > take someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's 
> > > like the fanatacism goes through the roof.
> > > 
> > > All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some 
> > > people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group 
> > > activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it).  It was a 
> > > major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want 
> > > anything to do with them anymore.  It's worse than trying to tell a 
> > > military recruiter that you changed your mind�..literally.  
> > > 
> > > seekliberation
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > I am guessing that this is carry over from the "Mens" movement thing
> > > > from some time ago.  Was it Sterling, or something?  I guess I could
> > > > look it up.  But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good
> > > > friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to
> > > > participate or something.  It was awkward for him, and it was awkward
> > > > for me.  But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics
> > > > you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and the FF
> > > > guy was doing his thing on the phone.  But then, as now, I didn't care
> > > > to get recruited to a new group.
> > > > 
> > > > And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his blatant
> > > > manipulation.  He just wouldn't take no for an answer.
> > > > 
> > > > Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[feste37]

I think you're referring to a recent New Yorker article about how sleep habits 
have changed. But the reference in that article was to 18th century America not 
cave people. So it wasn't that long ago. I'm thinking of trying it: going to 
bed at 8:30 or so, sleeping till 1, then getting up and doing stuff till about 
3, then going back to bed  until 6. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:
>
> When I was doing the MA in SCI, a classmate and I both noticed a big 
> difference going to bed at 9:15 rather than 9:30.  So we asked our Sanskrit 
> prof Tom Egenes about it and he said that there's something in the Vedic 
> literature about every 15 min before 10 pm being the equivalent of an hour of 
> sleep.  
> 
> And does anyone remember the famous quote attributed to Triguna:  that if we 
> all went to bed at 8:30 we wouldn't even need ayurveda?  I have 2 
> acqaintenances who did this for a while and they both looked radiant.  I've 
> done it when I've felt an illness coming on and it seems to nip it in the 
> bud.  I'm an early riser no matter what time I go to bed and I tend to wake 
> up at least once during the night.  So early bedtime is a good habit for me 
> though I realize it's not even necessary for others much less preferred.
> 
> This past year I read a fascinating article about sleep habits and our cave 
> people ancestors.  That they went to bed early, woke in the middle of the 
> night and did stuff, then went back to bed for another chunk of sleeping 
> time.  So it might be hardwired into us.  Knowing this made me a lot more 
> relaxed about my sleep habits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____
>  From: Alex Stanley 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:18 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
>  
> 
>   
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's]
> > > > lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution.  Looked at
> > > > as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by
> > > > only a small subset of the larger community.  Nothing was said that
> > > > could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with 
> > > my life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and 
> > > unable to attend.
> > 
> > 
> > 9PM is truly impressive, a goal I could never achieve even on Purusha now 
> > using living in a city as a lame excuse. When then do you rise ?
> >
> 
> Depends on how quickly I fall asleep and whether my sleep is interrupted 
> during the night. In a perfect night, I sleep ~7 hours straight. So, if I 
> fall quickly to sleep and don't wake up during the night, I'll get up between 
> 4 and 5 am. Most of the time, I get up between 5 and 6 am. On crappy sleep 
> nights, I get up at 7 am; regardless of how little or crappy my sleep is, my 
> body won't really sleep beyond 7 am.
> 
> Needless to say, this isn't a TM/Vedic thing for me. I'm a naturally 
> hard-wired morning person, and going to bed early greatly improves my quality 
> of life.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
>
> I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took 
> a Sterling course in Fairfield. She said that before 
> the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant guy, 
> but after the course he became a complete asshole. 

Color me not surprised. :-)

Like men need TRAINING to be assholes?  


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
> wrote:
> >
> > ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's.  I 
> > remember that whole thing (I think it's still going).  I ended up going to 
> > the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group.  It's actually 
> > valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, 
> > immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...).  The whole 
> > weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a 
> > view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in 
> > America.  It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful 
> > for it.  Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot 
> > of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often 
> > justified by modern American males to avoid altogether.
> > 
> > However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'. 
> >  Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a 
> > part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group.  I found that a lot of the 
> > men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT 
> > a part of their character.  It was usually to display some masculinity or 
> > manliness.  There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try 
> > acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life.  The 
> > intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic.  I honestly 
> > believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without any 
> > serious conflict with others.  Many men who were part of it eventually 
> > drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it.  However, we all 
> > agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better.
> > 
> > The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all 
> > nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to 
> > disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation of 
> > the 'Sterling Men's Group'.  I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader 
> > of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's 
> > group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the 
> > nation.  He was probably right.  A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, 
> > or some other form of spirituality or new-agism.  And if you take someone 
> > like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the 
> > fanatacism goes through the roof.
> > 
> > All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's 
> > lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that 
> > come afterward (unless you really enjoy it).  It was a major pain in the 
> > ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with 
> > them anymore.  It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you 
> > changed your mind�..literally.  
> > 
> > seekliberation
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > I am guessing that this is carry over from the "Mens" movement thing
> > > from some time ago.  Was it Sterling, or something?  I guess I could
> > > look it up.  But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good
> > > friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to
> > > participate or something.  It was awkward for him, and it was awkward
> > > for me.  But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics
> > > you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and the FF
> > > guy was doing his thing on the phone.  But then, as now, I didn't care
> > > to get recruited to a new group.
> > > 
> > > And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his blatant
> > > manipulation.  He just wouldn't take no for an answer.
> > > 
> > > Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[feste37]

I remember talking to one woman whose boyfriend took a Sterling course in 
Fairfield. She said that before the course he was a perfectly normal, pleasant 
guy, but after the course he became a complete asshole. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
wrote:
>
> ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's.  I 
> remember that whole thing (I think it's still going).  I ended up going to 
> the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group.  It's actually 
> valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, 
> immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...).  The whole 
> weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a 
> view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in 
> America.  It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful 
> for it.  Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of 
> perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by 
> modern American males to avoid altogether.
> 
> However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'.  
> Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a 
> part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group.  I found that a lot of the men 
> in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a 
> part of their character.  It was usually to display some masculinity or 
> manliness.  There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting 
> tough, though they never were tough their entire life.  The intensity of 
> their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic.  I honestly believe that 
> only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with 
> others.  Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same 
> perceptions that I had of it.  However, we all agreed it (the weekend 
> seminar) changed our lives for the better.
> 
> The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide 
> Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the 
> group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling 
> Men's Group'.  I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig 
> felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield 
> in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation.  He was probably 
> right.  A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of 
> spirituality or new-agism.  And if you take someone like that and latch them 
> onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof.
> 
> All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's 
> lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come 
> afterward (unless you really enjoy it).  It was a major pain in the ass when 
> I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. 
>  It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your 
> mind�..literally.  
> 
> seekliberation
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > I am guessing that this is carry over from the "Mens" movement thing
> > from some time ago.  Was it Sterling, or something?  I guess I could
> > look it up.  But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good
> > friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to
> > participate or something.  It was awkward for him, and it was awkward
> > for me.  But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics
> > you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and the FF
> > guy was doing his thing on the phone.  But then, as now, I didn't care
> > to get recruited to a new group.
> > 
> > And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his blatant
> > manipulation.  He just wouldn't take no for an answer.
> > 
> > Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> I was trying to see a picture of the guy. Here is a link:
> http://www.sterling-institute.com/sterling-institute-justin.php

This is the point at which I just have to roll my eyes.

I'm sorry (and no offence intended to those who went 
for this stuff and felt that they gained something 
from it), but to me this is just eye-roll city. 

It's like when I read FFL and see all these long-term
TMers so focused on their health problems and their
healers and talking about them non-stop and I have to 
think, "WTF? *These* are people who claim that TM 
produces 'perfect health?'" Well, when I read about 
people who need a fuckin' seminar to figure out what 
it is to be a man or a woman I have a similar reaction. 

I liked Robert Bly as a poet, but his whole Man thang
just left me completely cold and struck me as whining
back when I first heard about it, decades ago -- a bunch
of men sitting around a campfire pounding drums to get
over their Daddy issues. The whole concept *still* 
strikes me as ludicrous. 

WHO, ferchrissakes, needs to be told by some seminar
leader *making money from it* how to be a man or a 
woman, and what that entails? The very *concept* is
IMO designed for those who have been trained over the
years to pay for *everything* associated with self
discovery or fulfillment. 

These are seminars offered by someone *promoting*
duality, and making their money from the idea that
men and women are so fundamentally different that
they can't communicate without external help. As
the bumper sticker says so well, "Men are from Earth,
women are from Earth...get over it." 


> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
> wrote:
> >
> > ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's.  I 
> > remember that whole thing (I think it's still going).  I ended up going to 
> > the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group.  It's actually 
> > valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, 
> > immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...).  The whole 
> > weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a 
> > view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in 
> > America.  It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful 
> > for it.  Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot 
> > of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often 
> > justified by modern American males to avoid altogether.
> > 
> > However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'. 
> >  Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a 
> > part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group.  I found that a lot of the 
> > men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT 
> > a part of their character.  It was usually to display some masculinity or 
> > manliness.  There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try 
> > acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life.  The 
> > intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic.  I honestly 
> > believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without any 
> > serious conflict with others.  Many men who were part of it eventually 
> > drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it.  However, we all 
> > agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better.
> > 
> > The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all 
> > nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to 
> > disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation of 
> > the 'Sterling Men's Group'.  I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader 
> > of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's 
> > group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the 
> > nation.  He was probably right.  A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, 
> > or some other form of spirituality or new-agism.  And if you take someone 
> > like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the 
> > fanatacism goes through the roof.
> > 
> > All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's 
> > lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that 
> > come afterward (unless you really enjoy it).  It was a major pain in the 
> > ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with 
> > them anymore.  It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you 
> > changed your mind…..literally.  
> > 
> > seekliberation
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > I am guessing that this is carry over from the "Mens" movement thing
> > > from some time ago.  Was it Sterling, or something?  I guess I could
> > > look it up.  But I remember someone from Fairfield, pu

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Share Long]

When I was doing the MA in SCI, a classmate and I both noticed a big difference 
going to bed at 9:15 rather than 9:30.  So we asked our Sanskrit prof Tom 
Egenes about it and he said that there's something in the Vedic literature 
about every 15 min before 10 pm being the equivalent of an hour of sleep.  

And does anyone remember the famous quote attributed to Triguna:  that if we 
all went to bed at 8:30 we wouldn't even need ayurveda?  I have 2 
acqaintenances who did this for a while and they both looked radiant.  I've 
done it when I've felt an illness coming on and it seems to nip it in the bud.  
I'm an early riser no matter what time I go to bed and I tend to wake up at 
least once during the night.  So early bedtime is a good habit for me though I 
realize it's not even necessary for others much less preferred.

This past year I read a fascinating article about sleep habits and our cave 
people ancestors.  That they went to bed early, woke in the middle of the night 
and did stuff, then went back to bed for another chunk of sleeping time.  So it 
might be hardwired into us.  Knowing this made me a lot more relaxed about my 
sleep habits.





 From: Alex Stanley 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 8:18 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,
 

  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's]
> > > lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution.  Looked at
> > > as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by
> > > only a small subset of the larger community.  Nothing was said that
> > > could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people.
> > >
> > 
> > I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with my 
> > life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and unable 
> > to attend.
> 
> 
> 9PM is truly impressive, a goal I could never achieve even on Purusha now 
> using living in a city as a lame excuse. When then do you rise ?
>

Depends on how quickly I fall asleep and whether my sleep is interrupted during 
the night. In a perfect night, I sleep ~7 hours straight. So, if I fall quickly 
to sleep and don't wake up during the night, I'll get up between 4 and 5 am. 
Most of the time, I get up between 5 and 6 am. On crappy sleep nights, I get up 
at 7 am; regardless of how little or crappy my sleep is, my body won't really 
sleep beyond 7 am.

Needless to say, this isn't a TM/Vedic thing for me. I'm a naturally hard-wired 
morning person, and going to bed early greatly improves my quality of life.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's.  
> > > I remember that whole thing (I think it's still going).  I ended up going 
> > > to the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group.  It's 
> > > actually valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male 
> > > (irresponsible, immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, 
> > > etc...).  The whole weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what 
> > > I got out of it is a view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming 
> > > decade after decade in America.  It was a kind of eye-opening experience 
> > > for me, and i'm thankful for it.  Othwerwise, I do believe I would've 
> > > continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of responsibility 
> > > and growth that is often justified by modern American males to avoid 
> > > altogether.
> > > 
> > > However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a 
> > > cult'.  Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now 
> > > they're a part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group.  I found that a 
> > > lot of the men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that 
> > > were just NOT a part of their character.  It was usually to display some 
> > > masculinity or manliness.  There were so many of them that would all of a 
> > > sudden try acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life.  
> > > The intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic.  I 
> > > honestly believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without 
> > > any serious conflict with others.  Many men who were part of it 
> > > eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it.  
> > > However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the 
> > > better.
> > > 
> > > The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all 
> > > nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision 
> > > to disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation 
> > > of the 'Sterling Men's Group'.  I'm not sure why, but I think that the 
> > > leader of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the 
> > > men's group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of 
> > > the nation.  He was probably right.  A lot of these men were fanatics 
> > > about TM, or some other form of spirituality or new-agism.  And if you 
> > > take someone like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's 
> > > like the fanatacism goes through the roof.
> > > 
> > > All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some 
> > > people's lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group 
> > > activities that come afterward (unless you really enjoy it).  It was a 
> > > major pain in the ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want 
> > > anything to do with them anymore.  It's worse than trying to tell a 
> > > military recruiter that you changed your mind…..literally.  
> > > 
> > > seekliberation
> > >
> > 
> > Dear Seek,
> > Thanks, good post chronicling historic late 20th Century Fairfield 
> > sociology.  Good insight.
> > 
> > Yeah, Richard in an earlier post had a good observation about this.  
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" wrote:
> >  According to Lifton, cults are a form of 'totalism' and coercive 'thought 
> > reform'. 
> >  
> >   evidently it still is alive in Fairfield.
> 
> Fairfield is a veritable breeding ground for these kinds of things. What is 
> it about the soil and climate, Buck, that encourages such vegetative 
> flourishing (bad metaphor)? I would love to see a comprehensive list of all 
> the 'teachers', spiritual guides, leaders of healing movements, healers 
> themselves, enablers, channels, talkers, enlightened folk, celestial city 
> constructors, seers, prophesizers, pundits, avatars and whatever else there 
> might be that lurk in the back alleys off the town square. Anyone care to 
> make a list? 
>

It's in the spiritual experience of the place.  If not spiritual then you 
wouldn't appreciate it.  If spiritual then this place is Mecca.

Awoe, you should view the Fairfield Weekly Reader this week.  There's an 
incredible number of spiritual people advertised for meetings and consults 
coming up in the next few weeks.  There has been a Fairfield Directory of 
Active Spiritual Practice Groups but I don't think the Men back in those days 
ever made it in to it.
-Buck in the Dome

Share? I want to be ready when I come for a visit to book my first week's 
itinerary and make sure I cover at least 10% of what there is to offer there.
> 
> (Now all you FF dwellers, this was meant as a JOKE. Feste, let's meet at the 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Ann]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
> wrote:
> >
> > ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's.  I 
> > remember that whole thing (I think it's still going).  I ended up going to 
> > the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group.  It's actually 
> > valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, 
> > immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...).  The whole 
> > weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a 
> > view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in 
> > America.  It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful 
> > for it.  Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot 
> > of perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often 
> > justified by modern American males to avoid altogether.
> > 
> > However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'. 
> >  Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a 
> > part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group.  I found that a lot of the 
> > men in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT 
> > a part of their character.  It was usually to display some masculinity or 
> > manliness.  There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try 
> > acting tough, though they never were tough their entire life.  The 
> > intensity of their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic.  I honestly 
> > believe that only a sociopath could remain in that group without any 
> > serious conflict with others.  Many men who were part of it eventually 
> > drifted away due to the same perceptions that I had of it.  However, we all 
> > agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives for the better.
> > 
> > The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all 
> > nationwide Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to 
> > disband the group from Fairfield from being an official representation of 
> > the 'Sterling Men's Group'.  I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader 
> > of the whole gig felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's 
> > group from Fairfield in comparison to other groups in the rest of the 
> > nation.  He was probably right.  A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, 
> > or some other form of spirituality or new-agism.  And if you take someone 
> > like that and latch them onto another belief system, it's like the 
> > fanatacism goes through the roof.
> > 
> > All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's 
> > lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that 
> > come afterward (unless you really enjoy it).  It was a major pain in the 
> > ass when I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with 
> > them anymore.  It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you 
> > changed your mind…..literally.  
> > 
> > seekliberation
> >
> 
> Dear Seek,
> Thanks, good post chronicling historic late 20th Century Fairfield sociology. 
>  Good insight.
> 
> Yeah, Richard in an earlier post had a good observation about this.  
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" wrote:
>  According to Lifton, cults are a form of 'totalism' and coercive 'thought 
> reform'. 
>  
>   evidently it still is alive in Fairfield.

Fairfield is a veritable breeding ground for these kinds of things. What is it 
about the soil and climate, Buck, that encourages such vegetative flourishing 
(bad metaphor)? I would love to see a comprehensive list of all the 'teachers', 
spiritual guides, leaders of healing movements, healers themselves, enablers, 
channels, talkers, enlightened folk, celestial city constructors, seers, 
prophesizers, pundits, avatars and whatever else there might be that lurk in 
the back alleys off the town square. Anyone care to make a list? Share? I want 
to be ready when I come for a visit to book my first week's itinerary and make 
sure I cover at least 10% of what there is to offer there.

(Now all you FF dwellers, this was meant as a JOKE. Feste, let's meet at the 
Carnegie Library, the one that still stands upright when I arrive and then 
perhaps a tea at Cafe Paradiso?)
> 
>  
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > I am guessing that this is carry over from the "Mens" movement thing
> > > from some time ago.  Was it Sterling, or something?  I guess I could
> > > look it up.  But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good
> > > friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to
> > > participate or something.  It was awkward for him, and it was awkward
> > > for me.  But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics
> > > you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and t

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Ann]

I was trying to see a picture of the guy. Here is a link:
http://www.sterling-institute.com/sterling-institute-justin.php

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
wrote:
>
> ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's.  I 
> remember that whole thing (I think it's still going).  I ended up going to 
> the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group.  It's actually 
> valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, 
> immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...).  The whole 
> weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a 
> view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in 
> America.  It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful 
> for it.  Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of 
> perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by 
> modern American males to avoid altogether.
> 
> However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'.  
> Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a 
> part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group.  I found that a lot of the men 
> in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a 
> part of their character.  It was usually to display some masculinity or 
> manliness.  There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting 
> tough, though they never were tough their entire life.  The intensity of 
> their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic.  I honestly believe that 
> only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with 
> others.  Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same 
> perceptions that I had of it.  However, we all agreed it (the weekend 
> seminar) changed our lives for the better.
> 
> The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide 
> Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the 
> group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling 
> Men's Group'.  I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig 
> felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield 
> in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation.  He was probably 
> right.  A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of 
> spirituality or new-agism.  And if you take someone like that and latch them 
> onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof.
> 
> All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's 
> lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come 
> afterward (unless you really enjoy it).  It was a major pain in the ass when 
> I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. 
>  It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your 
> mind…..literally.  
> 
> seekliberation
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > I am guessing that this is carry over from the "Mens" movement thing
> > from some time ago.  Was it Sterling, or something?  I guess I could
> > look it up.  But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good
> > friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to
> > participate or something.  It was awkward for him, and it was awkward
> > for me.  But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics
> > you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and the FF
> > guy was doing his thing on the phone.  But then, as now, I didn't care
> > to get recruited to a new group.
> > 
> > And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his blatant
> > manipulation.  He just wouldn't take no for an answer.
> > 
> > Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Alex Stanley]

MKP is the new Sterling in FF:

http://mankindproject.org/

Notice how the original invite referred to LB as a "warrior"?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
wrote:
>
> ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's.  I 
> remember that whole thing (I think it's still going).  I ended up going to 
> the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group.  It's actually 
> valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, 
> immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...).  The whole 
> weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a 
> view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in 
> America.  It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful 
> for it.  Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of 
> perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by 
> modern American males to avoid altogether.
> 
> However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'.  
> Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a 
> part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group.  I found that a lot of the men 
> in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a 
> part of their character.  It was usually to display some masculinity or 
> manliness.  There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting 
> tough, though they never were tough their entire life.  The intensity of 
> their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic.  I honestly believe that 
> only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with 
> others.  Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same 
> perceptions that I had of it.  However, we all agreed it (the weekend 
> seminar) changed our lives for the better.
> 
> The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide 
> Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the 
> group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling 
> Men's Group'.  I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig 
> felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield 
> in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation.  He was probably 
> right.  A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of 
> spirituality or new-agism.  And if you take someone like that and latch them 
> onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof.
> 
> All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's 
> lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come 
> afterward (unless you really enjoy it).  It was a major pain in the ass when 
> I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. 
>  It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your 
> mind…..literally.  
> 
> seekliberation
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > I am guessing that this is carry over from the "Mens" movement thing
> > from some time ago.  Was it Sterling, or something?  I guess I could
> > look it up.  But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good
> > friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to
> > participate or something.  It was awkward for him, and it was awkward
> > for me.  But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics
> > you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and the FF
> > guy was doing his thing on the phone.  But then, as now, I didn't care
> > to get recruited to a new group.
> > 
> > And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his blatant
> > manipulation.  He just wouldn't take no for an answer.
> > 
> > Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation"  
wrote:
>
> ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's.  I 
> remember that whole thing (I think it's still going).  I ended up going to 
> the 'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group.  It's actually 
> valuable if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, 
> immature, unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...).  The whole 
> weekend is about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a 
> view of how weak and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in 
> America.  It was a kind of eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful 
> for it.  Othwerwise, I do believe I would've continued in life with a lot of 
> perpetual abandonment of responsibility and growth that is often justified by 
> modern American males to avoid altogether.
> 
> However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'.  
> Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a 
> part of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group.  I found that a lot of the men 
> in that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a 
> part of their character.  It was usually to display some masculinity or 
> manliness.  There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting 
> tough, though they never were tough their entire life.  The intensity of 
> their recruiting efforts was borderline psychotic.  I honestly believe that 
> only a sociopath could remain in that group without any serious conflict with 
> others.  Many men who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same 
> perceptions that I had of it.  However, we all agreed it (the weekend 
> seminar) changed our lives for the better.
> 
> The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide 
> Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the 
> group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling 
> Men's Group'.  I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig 
> felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield 
> in comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation.  He was probably 
> right.  A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of 
> spirituality or new-agism.  And if you take someone like that and latch them 
> onto another belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof.
> 
> All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's 
> lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come 
> afterward (unless you really enjoy it).  It was a major pain in the ass when 
> I announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore. 
>  It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your 
> mind…..literally.  
> 
> seekliberation
>

Dear Seek,
Thanks, good post chronicling historic late 20th Century Fairfield sociology.  
Good insight.

Yeah, Richard in an earlier post had a good observation about this.  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" wrote:
 According to Lifton, cults are a form of 'totalism' and coercive 'thought 
reform'. 
 
  evidently it still is alive in Fairfield.

 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > I am guessing that this is carry over from the "Mens" movement thing
> > from some time ago.  Was it Sterling, or something?  I guess I could
> > look it up.  But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good
> > friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to
> > participate or something.  It was awkward for him, and it was awkward
> > for me.  But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics
> > you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and the FF
> > guy was doing his thing on the phone.  But then, as now, I didn't care
> > to get recruited to a new group.
> > 
> > And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his blatant
> > manipulation.  He just wouldn't take no for an answer.
> > 
> > Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's]
> > > lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution.  Looked at
> > > as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by
> > > only a small subset of the larger community.  Nothing was said that
> > > could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people.
> > >
> > 
> > I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with my 
> > life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and unable 
> > to attend.
> 
> 
> 9PM is truly impressive, a goal I could never achieve even on Purusha now 
> using living in a city as a lame excuse. When then do you rise ?
>

Depends on how quickly I fall asleep and whether my sleep is interrupted during 
the night. In a perfect night, I sleep ~7 hours straight. So, if I fall quickly 
to sleep and don't wake up during the night, I'll get up between 4 and 5 am. 
Most of the time, I get up between 5 and 6 am. On crappy sleep nights, I get up 
at 7 am; regardless of how little or crappy my sleep is, my body won't really 
sleep beyond 7 am.

Needless to say, this isn't a TM/Vedic thing for me. I'm a naturally hard-wired 
morning person, and going to bed early greatly improves my quality of life.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[seekliberation]

ahhh, the whole sterling men's group cult that started back in the 90's.  I 
remember that whole thing (I think it's still going).  I ended up going to the 
'weekend seminar' that is the basis of the whole group.  It's actually valuable 
if you've been raised like a modern american male (irresponsible, immature, 
unable to transition from boyhood to manhood, etc...).  The whole weekend is 
about a lot of things, but primarily what I got out of it is a view of how weak 
and pathetic men are becoming decade after decade in America.  It was a kind of 
eye-opening experience for me, and i'm thankful for it.  Othwerwise, I do 
believe I would've continued in life with a lot of perpetual abandonment of 
responsibility and growth that is often justified by modern American males to 
avoid altogether.

However, the whole sterling men's group turned into a 'cult within a cult'.  
Not only were the men from Fairfield mostly meditators, but now they're a part 
of another new 'paradigm-shifting' group.  I found that a lot of the men in 
that group were doing a lot of superficial things that were just NOT a part of 
their character.  It was usually to display some masculinity or manliness.  
There were so many of them that would all of a sudden try acting tough, though 
they never were tough their entire life.  The intensity of their recruiting 
efforts was borderline psychotic.  I honestly believe that only a sociopath 
could remain in that group without any serious conflict with others.  Many men 
who were part of it eventually drifted away due to the same perceptions that I 
had of it.  However, we all agreed it (the weekend seminar) changed our lives 
for the better.

The funny part about it is that eventually the Head Honcho of all nationwide 
Sterling groups (Justin Sterling) made an executive decision to disband the 
group from Fairfield from being an official representation of the 'Sterling 
Men's Group'.  I'm not sure why, but I think that the leader of the whole gig 
felt that something was seriously wrong with the men's group from Fairfield in 
comparison to other groups in the rest of the nation.  He was probably right.  
A lot of these men were fanatics about TM, or some other form of spirituality 
or new-agism.  And if you take someone like that and latch them onto another 
belief system, it's like the fanatacism goes through the roof.

All that being said, I do agree that the weekend has changed some people's 
lives, but I would strongly recommend avoiding the group activities that come 
afterward (unless you really enjoy it).  It was a major pain in the ass when I 
announced to the group that I didn't want anything to do with them anymore.  
It's worse than trying to tell a military recruiter that you changed your mind…
..literally.  

seekliberation

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27"  wrote:
>
> 
> I am guessing that this is carry over from the "Mens" movement thing
> from some time ago.  Was it Sterling, or something?  I guess I could
> look it up.  But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good
> friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to
> participate or something.  It was awkward for him, and it was awkward
> for me.  But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics
> you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and the FF
> guy was doing his thing on the phone.  But then, as now, I didn't care
> to get recruited to a new group.
> 
> And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his blatant
> manipulation.  He just wouldn't take no for an answer.
> 
> Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it.
> 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's]
> > lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution.  Looked at
> > as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by
> > only a small subset of the larger community.  Nothing was said that
> > could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people.
> >
> 
> I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with my 
> life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and unable to 
> attend.


9PM is truly impressive, a goal I could never achieve even on Purusha now using 
living in a city as a lame excuse. When then do you rise ?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[seventhray27]

I am guessing that this is carry over from the "Mens" movement thing
from some time ago.  Was it Sterling, or something?  I guess I could
look it up.  But I remember someone from Fairfield, put one of my good
friends from here in St. Louis to recruit me, or invite me to
participate or something.  It was awkward for him, and it was awkward
for me.  But the Fairfield guy employed all the high pressure tactics
you use to sell something. My friend and I were at my house and the FF
guy was doing his thing on the phone.  But then, as now, I didn't care
to get recruited to a new group.

And truthfully, I still have resentment for that guy for his blatant
manipulation.  He just wouldn't take no for an answer.

Who knows, maybe I could have benefited from it.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"
j_alexander_stanley@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's]
> > > lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution. Looked at
> > > as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard
by
> > > only a small subset of the larger community. Nothing was said that
> > > could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more
people.
> > >
> >
> > I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But,
with my life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm
and unable to attend.
> >
>
>
> Yeah, funny thing is that it was proactive women in the larger FF
community that managed getting it video recorded.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,..to WLeed3

[laughinggull108]

Go to whitepages.com, type in LB Shriver beside "name", and Fairfield, IA 
beside "city/state", and you'll have it.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WLeed3@... wrote:
>
> Does any one know LB's Tel # I would like to talk to him as an old  
> supporting friend now in Buffalo NY & have missed our talks when he & I  were 
> in FF 
> IA. He was the 1 who 1 St opened my eyes to the movement being like  as 
> Ashram  or rather the MIU being such. I am deeply indebted to him 4 such  & 
> read all his news prints they are of quality & germain  today 4 the most part.
>  
>  
> In a message dated 3/22/2013 10:12:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
> dhamiltony2k5@... writes:
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
>  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > ---  In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > >
> >  > 
> > > Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his  [LB's]
> > > lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice  resolution.  Looked at
> > > as a FF communitarian it was proly  unfortunate that it was heard by
> > > only a small subset of the  larger community.  Nothing was said that
> > > could not have been  heard by and been helpful to a lot more people.
> > >
> > 
> >  I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with 
> my  life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and 
> unable to  attend.
> >
> 
> 
> Yeah, funny thing is that it was proactive women in  the larger FF 
> community that managed getting it video recorded.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To subscribe, send  a message to:
> fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Or go to:  
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
> and click 'Join This  Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[WLeed3]

Does any one know LB's Tel # I would like to talk to him as an old  
supporting friend now in Buffalo NY & have missed our talks when he & I  were 
in FF 
IA. He was the 1 who 1 St opened my eyes to the movement being like  as 
Ashram  or rather the MIU being such. I am deeply indebted to him 4 such  & 
read all his news prints they are of quality & germain  today 4 the most part.
 
 
In a message dated 3/22/2013 10:12:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
dhamiltony...@yahoo.com writes:



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
 wrote:
>
> 
> 
> ---  In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
>  > 
> > Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his  [LB's]
> > lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice  resolution.  Looked at
> > as a FF communitarian it was proly  unfortunate that it was heard by
> > only a small subset of the  larger community.  Nothing was said that
> > could not have been  heard by and been helpful to a lot more people.
> >
> 
>  I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with 
my  life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and 
unable to  attend.
>


Yeah, funny thing is that it was proactive women in  the larger FF 
community that managed getting it video recorded.  





To subscribe, send  a message to:
fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com

Or go to:  
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This  Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's]
> > lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution.  Looked at
> > as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by
> > only a small subset of the larger community.  Nothing was said that
> > could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people.
> >
> 
> I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with my 
> life so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and unable to 
> attend.
>


Yeah, funny thing is that it was proactive women in the larger FF community 
that managed getting it video recorded. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Men only,

[Alex Stanley]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> 
> Was a good lecture. Extremely well spoken story of his [LB's]
> lifetime with FF and TM and his really nice resolution.  Looked at
> as a FF communitarian it was proly unfortunate that it was heard by
> only a small subset of the larger community.  Nothing was said that
> could not have been heard by and been helpful to a lot more people.
>

I probably would have enjoyed it, and I hope it was recorded. But, with my life 
so completely focused on Vedic purity, I was in bed by 9pm and unable to attend.