--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > Theorem: Anyone can say anything about you > that they want; that is out of your control. > What is *not* out of your control is how to > react, or whether to at all. It is my con- > tention that those who react defensively or > angrily to "protect their self image" have > the most self to protect, and the least Self.
Interesting theorem. Barry has justified saying anything he wants about a person he doesn't like, even when he knows it isn't true, and has effectively stigmatized that person if they dare respond to correct the falsehoods. Barry has framed the issue so as to give himself free reign to demean and disparage his "enemies" by telling lies about them, and to demean and disparage them further if they object. Heads Barry wins, tails whoever he's dumping on today loses. <snip> > In case no one has noticed, I've been trying > not to defend myself. I've had many occasions > to, but I don't. I may in fact do my best to > portray those who spend the most time demon- > izing me as being as ridiculous as I perceive > them to be, in the hope that if enough people > laugh at them, someday they might learn to > laugh at themselves. And I may occasionally > give them "a taste of their own medicine." Anyone who criticizes Barry, even if their criticism is accurate, is to be perceived as ridiculous. > But I don't waste time trying to nitpick each > derogatory name they call me or "defend myself" > by disputing their claims. What would be the > point? Those on this forum who already dislike > me still will, no matter what I say. If I were > to waste time "defending myself," all that would > happen is that I'd be playing the game of the > people who want me to do just that. > > No way. I'll stick to "drive bys," thanks. I'll > just say what I say and allow those I say it > about to react the way that *they* see fit. I > feel no obligation to "back up" any of my opin- > ions (because that is, in fact, what they are), > or to argue about them incessantly, the way some > seem to want me to. If that's what they see as > a good use of their time, so be it. I'll stick > to expressing my opinion and allowing others to > express theirs in response. Or not, depending > on how much self they feel they have and how > desperately they feel it needs defending. Barry perceives *his* image among the rest of us to be fixed, not subject to change, so there's no point in criticizing him. However, the folks he doesn't like have an image among others here that is vulnerable to criticism from Barry, criticism that he sees no need to "back up," meaning it's OK for him to say whatever he wants about them, whether true or not, without any accountability. And (back to the beginnning) if they object (which he will graciously "allow" them to do), they are condemned as having too much self and too little Self. Pretty neat, eh? Barry, of course, has a tremendous amount of Self, proven by the fact that he doesn't defend himself (except, of course, when he's defending himself by explaining at great length that he doesn't defend himself). Also, not only does Barry not feel the need to "back up" his opinions, anything Barry says is to be understood as opinion, even when it involves factual matters. If someone he doesn't like says X, and he claims they said Y, even when the record shows they said X and not Y, it's OK, it isn't a falsehood, because it's just his opinion they said Y. Finally, a note on the post of his own that Barry is commenting on: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: <snip> > > > My theory is this -- if a spiritual organization does > > > not provide real spiritual experience on a regular > > > basis, it learns very quickly that to keep followers > > > on the line and contributing the big bucks it has to > > > give them something *else*. That "something else" > > > is often regular doses of strong emotion. <snip> > > > Thus we get the phenomenon of "manufactured outrage" > > > we see so often here on Fairfield Life. Someone pre- > > > tends to be outraged about someone "lying," and rants > > > on and on about it for hundreds of lines of text, > > > jacking themselves up into a mood of oh-so-righteous > > > indignation and moral superiority. You see, if a TMer objects to Barry telling insulting and demeaning falsehoods about them, it's to be understood as a function of TM not having provided them with real spiritual experience on a regular basis, rather than as a natural human reaction to being slandered. For a TMer, there's no such thing as *real* outrage; it's always manufactured, no matter what the provocation. (At least if it's Barry doing the provoking.) And of course in Barry's view there's no "moral superiority" whatsoever in sticking to the truth, nor any bad karma in lying. So hopefully, given all the above, whatever thoughts you may have had about Barry's attacks on and lies about others have now been definitively stopped. The issue has been settled without your having to consider it. His framing has proved his spiritual superiority to those he doesn't like, and he will continue to attack them and lie about them without fear of challenge, because there is no such thing as a legitimate challenge to Barry.
